Still Think It’s A Good Idea?

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.

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.

While more than half of patients in France, Spain, Germany and Italy have access to new treatments provided since 1985, the proportion in the UK is four out of 10.

French women with cancer are 34 per cent more likely than those in the UK to still be alive five years after being diagnosed, while French male patients have a 23 per cent higher survival rate after the same period.

The report into cancer treatment in 25 countries found the uptake of newer cancer drugs was "low and slow" in the UK as well as New Zealand, Poland, Czech Republic and South Africa.

Its Swedish authors from the influential Karolinska Institute added that there was "no evidence" that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) was meeting its objective of avoiding significant delays in introducing new treatments.

The kicker:

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.

All the complaints about US health care from the left. Ten times better access to drugs that can save your life. Ten times. Ten times better than the role model the left holds up – European-style socialized medicine.

Still think it is a good idea? Really? Better hope you don't get cancer.

This entry was posted in Medicine, World news. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Still Think It’s A Good Idea?

  1. Pingback: The Anchoress » US Cancer Care 10X better than socialized UK

  2. crosspatch says:

    I think Rush hit the nail on the head the other day.

    The whole push for nationalized medical care is being driven by the labor unions. Labor contracts demanding increasingly expensive medical care plans from industry is resulting in squeezing of wages and jobs as industry must make up the slack elsewhere. And in some industries the unions themselves are forced to provide medical benefits. If the unions want their jobs, they need to get the rest of the population to fund their medical plans. So the real deal is that big labor wants non-union labor to pay for their worker’s benefits though the tax system. Think union dues would actually go down as a result? Not a chance.

  3. Pingback: justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » Cancer and Socilized Medicine

  4. Pingback: Blogmeister USA

  5. Pingback: The Jawa Report

  6. Dissenter says:

    Actually, France is usually held up as the Gold Standard for nationalized health care.

    And the U.K.’s health care system must not be too terrible, since their life expectancy is slightly higher than in the U.S. Life expectancy in France is about 3 years more than in the U.S., as it is in Canada.

  7. Gaius says:

    Gee, you mean France with extremely high unemployment, particularly among the younger people? France with the stagnant economy? Great gold standard, there.

  8. Woodsprite says:

    “And the U.K.’s health care system must not be too terrible, since their life expectancy is slightly higher than in the U.S. Life expectancy in France is about 3 years more than in the U.S., as it is in Canada.”

    Not exactly an apples to apples comparison because of the US standard practices on premature births. It skews the statistics. The rates of stillborn births in the US are much lower than in other western countries, but our infant mortality rates are much higher. In the US a very premature baby which would be considered stillborn elsewhere will generally receive an exterme amount of medical care immediately after birth. Even with the best care available the odds are not great and many do not survive past a few weeks. A child who dies after three days of life is counted against a countrie’s life expectancy statistics. A stillborn baby is not.

  9. Bill Franklin says:

    Dissenter, you say France is held up as having the best health care. I assume you are referring to the World Health Organization report circa 2002 that ranked the quality of health care of all nations. France did score #1 in that report, but Britian scored in the mid-teens, well above the USA which ranked somewhere in the mid-30s(!).

    This news report should bring into question that entire WHO ranking, including France’s supposed #1 status. Clearly the WHO was pushing an agenda or was weighting some variables inappropriately.

  10. Dissenter says:

    Bill Franklin,

    I actually was referencing life expectancy statistics, not a ranking of quality of health care, that comes from the World Factbook, put out by that notoriously left-wing organization, the CIA.

    Also, according to the World Health Organization, the neonatal mortality rate in France is 2/1000 live births, but 4/1000 live births in the U.S. In Canada and the U.K. it’s 3/1000 live births, so it’s not an accurate statement to say that “rates of stillborn births in the US are much lower than in other western countries.”

    According to WHO, infant mortality rates are also lower in France (4/1000 live births), Canada (5/1000 live births), Cuba (5/1000 live births), Germany (4/1000 live births), Japan (3/1000 live births), and the U.K. (5/1000 live births) than in the U.S. (7/1000 live births).

    Compared to the non-developed world, both the neonatal and infant mortality rates are low, but compared to the rest of the developed world the rates are on the high side. Most of the rest of the developed world has some form of socialized medicine.

    Gaius wrote Gee, you mean France with extremely high unemployment, particularly among the younger people? France with the stagnant economy? Great gold standard, there.

    It’s not clear that the existence of socialized medicine has anything to do with the unemployment rate.

    And if you want to condemn a government based on high unemployment, keep in mind that the highest unemployment rates in the U.S. since the Depression happened in Reagan’s 2nd and 3rd years (9.7% and 9.6%), and we even had high unemployment with boom-economy GDP growth in his fourth year (7/5% unemployment with 7.2% real GDP growth).

  11. Pingback: Don Surber » Blog Archive » Cheap health care

  12. Pingback: Blue Crab Boulevard » Universal Health Care Implosion

  13. Pingback: Blue Crab Boulevard » Red Flag

Comments are closed.