04 August 2009
If you see this ad on television...
...either ignore it, or better yet, point out to anyone in the room with you that it is a grossly misleading distortion of reality. The woman (Shona Holmes, a real person) asserts that she had a "brain tumor." That is true in the sense that the word "tumor" means "growth" - just as it's correct to say that a pregnant woman has a "tumor" in her uterus.
She did not have brain cancer. What she had was a benign Rathke's cleft cyst - a pituitary malformation that can cause distressing symptoms, but which is slowly progressive, if at all, and is typically treated on an elective basis.
Health care reform is a complex issue which needs to be addressed by rational adults. Grossly misleading propaganda like this exacerbates the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not Canadian so I don't know anything about their healthcare system, but I am English so I have plenty of unpleasant experiences with the NHS. And of course since I use the internet I've heard all about the American system.
ReplyDeleteYes the American system is unfair, lets many people down and needs to be reformed. But the NHS is also unfair, lets many people down and needs to be reformed.
Surely with all the intelligent, innovative people in the world, someone somewhere must be able to devise a third alternative that works, right? I've no ideas myself, but maybe if the governments could persuade the folks at Google HQ to brainstorm a bit...?
Abigail,
ReplyDeleteOne very big difference between the U.S. & England: Our system leaves almost 46 million people completely uncovered. NHS is a dream compared to what we have.
If both systems are unfair, let people down, and need to be reformed, I'll take the British version, please, because it only costs about half as much. (Plus which, as Steve notes, it covers everybody.)
ReplyDeleteThis is a handy little table to whip out when the cost of health care comes up, the comparative per-capita cost per year (as of 2003):
United States $5711
Australia $2886
Austria $2958
Belgium $3044
Canada $2998
Denmark $2743
Finland $2104
France $3048
Germany $2983
Iceland $3159
Ireland $2466
Italy $2314
Japan $2249
Luxembourg $4611
Netherlands $2909
Norway $3769
Sweden $2745
Switzerland $3847
United Kingdom $2317
I'd rather have choices and freedom than "free" healthcare. If healthcare is so important, then we shouldn't put it all in one basket (like the proverbial eggs).
ReplyDeleteSteve -
ReplyDeleteNo, you are wrong. Our system does not leave 46 million uncovered. Many of those who do not have health care insurance CHOOSE NOT TO GET IT, even though they could afford.
Yes, you read that right.
Do you know where the 46 million # comes from?
It comes from the U.s. Census Bureau, which admits IN THE REPORT that the 46 million number should be used with caution because of the difficulty with classifying how/why people are uninsured.
Millions do not purchase health insurance, even though they gross over $50,000/yr.
Many more millions who are under 25 choose not to purchase insurance because they opt to spend their money elsewhere - they have plenty of i-Pods, cell phones, nice overseas trips, swank clothes, etc - but no health insurance.
Why should I pay for them to have insurance???? I make sacrifices to have health insurance - why shouldn't others?
According to the MayoClinic website, the tumor Shona Williams had causes hormone and vision problems.
ReplyDeleteThe doctor who worked on this patient was getting increasingly concerned that the growth of the tumor could cause her to go blind.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html
And you are saying that people who have this tumor treat it "electively?" Really?
I didn't realize that going blind was an elective sort of thing.
Look, I agree with you - all of us, no matter what our beliefs, need to have the facts. I also could do without the fear mongering. But that goes both ways. It is a farce, an utter joke, to sit and listen to the President state that we are going to go broke if we don't go to a single-payer system when he and his Democratic colleagues have NO problem quadrupling our budget deficit.
Please listen to what I'm saying. I am an RN and provide cardiac care to all sorts of patients. I KNOW our system is not perfect and has all sorts of problems. But no one else has figured out a better system.
Here is a VERY quick piece about the quality of American health care by a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html
Deana, the deficit isn't nearly as much of a threat to the country's economic well-being as the health insurance problem. And we'd be in really bad shape if the government weren't spending the money to get the economy back on track. Both the deficit and health insurance reform are essential.
ReplyDeleteAnd V, where did you get the idea that health insurance reform will give us "free" health care, or that it would take away freedom of choice?? Neither is the case.
ReplyDeleteAnother tidbit from this whole affair that doesn't get mentioned much is that they had to sell their house in Canada to pay the 100k bill they accrued in the USA. Not a great advertisement for our healthcare system once you know any of the facts.
ReplyDeleteSwift Loris -
ReplyDeleteYou provide no basis for your claim that "the deficit isn't nearly as much of a threat to the country's economic well-being as the health insurance problem."
Please take a moment and read the following. This is from Michael Boskin, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, who actually is supportive of some of Obama's policies:
" . . . what is not just worrisome but dangerous are the growing trillion dollar deficits in the latter years of the Obama budget. These deficits are so large for a prosperous nation in peacetime -- three times safe levels -- that they would cause the debt burden to soar toward banana republic levels. That's a recipe for a permanent drag on growth and serious pressure on the Federal Reserve to inflate . . ."
And to make it all real and personal, read this:
"What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In ten years, interest would bring the total to well over $200,000, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding ten years, the tax hike per year would average almost $26,000.)"
Swift Loris, maybe you are wealthy - I don't know. But how many families do you know could pay $200,000 in taxes?
Really - how many people do you know can do that???
And you are trying to convince people that the health insurance situation in this country, which IS a problem, is more of a threat than saddling ALL tax paying American families with $200,000 in taxes??
One other thing, Swift:
ReplyDeleteOn top of all the taxes we are being saddled with just to address the deficit, how do you think we are going to pay for all the fabulous healthcare Obama is promising us?
Why, more taxes, of course! Because apparently, we just aren't paying quite enough.
Look, we DO have problems with our health care system. But the answer is NOT government control. It's the free-market.
Millions and millions of people in control of their own money and resources will make better decisions every single time than a bunch of hyper-educated 30 and 40 year olds in Washington with no private business experience.
Tax payers should only help Americans who are sadly afflicted with catastrophic illnesses, to keep them in their homes and cared for properly.
Deana
P.S. - Swift, you need to talk to some nurses and doctors, particularly those who work in ERs, and listen to the types of patients they have to take care of in the hospital. Many are legitimately ill and in need of assistance - we do everything we can to help these people. But then ask about the drug seekers, the abusers, the millions of patients who don't lift a finger to help themselves but damn us for not breaking our backs to do everything for them.
If Americans could see what we see in our hospitals, we would be having a VERY different discussion on tax-payer funded health care.
Link for Boskin's essay: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html
First of all, there is no "British system" as Swift Lorris puts it because the NHS is separate in each of the four countries. Not only does each country get a different level of funding per capita, but treatment options vary from one to another.
ReplyDeleteSeveral drugs are denied to English people because of the cost while they are available in Scotland. People have even been known to move there to try and get better treatment for things such as cancer. While money is a factor in treatment decisions in private healthcare too, at least then the patient has a say.
As for your 6 year old data showing the NHS to be comparatively cheap to run, you're overlooking multi-million pound budget deficits, rising prescription and treatment charges which run to hundreds of pounds and the fact that hospitals make money from other sources such as exorbitant parking charges.
To Steve and swift who point out that the NHS covers everyone - you're right, we all get the same **** service. Financially the costs are lower than going private (how much lower varies depending on where you live). But you're forgetting about access to that treatment.
For example there is a shortage of dentists so that many people cannot get dental treatment. I'm one of the lucky ones because I have a dentist but it doesn't mean it's all hunky dory. I broke a tooth in April and although it's crumbled almost completely away, exposing the nerves and leaving me in pain, I won't get any treatment for another 2 and a half months!
Then there's the older relative of mine who had several strokes and was presented with two treatment options with varying levels of risk. Then told that because there was an ongoing study, neither he nor the doctor could choose which one he had - instead it was a randomised decision with a 50/50 chance for each treatment. Fortunately he's doing all right so far, no thanks to the NHS putting money and research over patient welfare.
I realise this post is already very long so I won't bore you with further tales of how the NHS has let various family members down. Suffice to say that despite the existence of the NHS, rich people go private and the rest of us grin and bear it. Sound familiar?
How many of our "leaders" in Congress who receive funding from insurance companies and are opposed to a government run health care system actually turn down the government run health care provided them?
ReplyDeleteDeana,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your claims that people who don't have insurance yet can easily afford it: [citation needed]
I have health insurance through work (no dental, no eye) and I can't afford anything else. Even my health is crummy and the bills of what's uncovered would break me.
The fact is, never mind the NHS which is still better, most of the Western world has universal care that's cheaper and results in a healthier populace than us.
The idea of not having a cent of your money going to the greater good is a bogus one. I don't use lots of bridges, highways, police etc. but I know that my tax money, in this imperfect system benefits the public good and makes us all stronger.
Sure, Steve, no problem.
ReplyDeleteFrom the U.S. Census Bureau's "Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2007" report.
Here's the link: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
Steve, scroll down to page 23 of the report. There you will find the following:
"The proportion of people not covered by health insurance is lower among people with higher income. In 2007 . . . 14.5 percent for households with
incomes of $50,000 to $74,999 (did not have insurance), and
7.8 percent for households with
incomes of $75,000 or more."
Also, please note that I believe that reform IS needed. The folks out here who are against Obama and the Democrats' plan are not anti-reform. We simply know that government is not the answer, the free market is with some government oversight.
One other thing: I have made everything from $25,000/year to $70,000/year, and I've always had health insurance through my job. When I was unemployed between the time of finishing nursing school and passing the boards, I lived with family to save money and spent $270/month to make sure I had health insurance.
Also, I personally have met many people who give sob stories about how they "can't afford" health insurance but oddly enough, they are able to have very nice weddings, go on nice honeymoons, buy a nicer home than I have ever lived in, and so on.
I want to help Americans get the best health care possible. It is one of the reasons I became a nurse. But too many Americans do not have their priorities in order and I'm sick to death of being responsible for their irresponsibility.
And Steve, are you really sure that NHS is better?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure parts of it are better but parts of it are not. Perhaps you do not read the news much but about 2 months ago, there were articles about the declining state of dental health in England, just as anonymous discussed. It's ridiculous.
Also, did you know that:
- Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom?
- Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway?
- The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher?
- That Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.?
No?
You didn't know that?
Well, here's the article. It's written by Scott W. Atlas. He's a M.D., a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html
I'm a bit late to the discussion but I would like to add that sick people in urgent need of care are not the free, rational consumers one needs to speak of a free market.
ReplyDeleteDeana,
ReplyDeleteNone of your links or *personal anecdotes*, have backed up your claims, that people who don't have insurance, do so out of choice, or that univeral systems are worse than the U.S.'s horrible system.
World Health Organizations ranking of the world's health care systems:
"The five measures used are: overall level of health or life expectancy; health fairness or life expectancy as measured across various populations within a country; responsiveness or how well people rated performance of their health care system; fairness in responsiveness among different groups in the same country; and fairness in financing among different groups, which looked at what proportion of income is devoted to health care."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization
http://www.who.int/whr/en/index.html
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
Deana where does your linked article get its stats? It doesn't say so no one can verify them. (the hover link).
ReplyDeleteHow does a family making less than 100 K a year end up with a tax bill for 200,000? That's completely illogical. Each individual's percentage will go up. I'd take paying more taxes for healthcare. Even for people who "don't work as hard as I do".
Life isn't fair. If it were we'd all make 200,000 a year and be able to pay for health care with no worries.
"Why should I pay for them to have insurance???? I make sacrifices to have health insurance - why shouldn't others?"
You're right you shouldn't have to. But what about all the people making $5/hr who cannot get health insurance? Maybe they should just a better job?
"Millions and millions of people in control of their own money and resources will make better decisions every single time than a bunch of hyper-educated 30 and 40 year olds in Washington with no private business experience."
WHAT does business experience have to do with HEALTH? How will these millions make their decisions? Based on advice from doctors, who in the free market are going to be motivated by COST rather than actual level of care.
I'm only 28, but I've never had any of my family members and family (here in Canada) denied medical treatment- such as radiation/chemotherapy or even elective things such as hip replacement does not have a long wait time. Elective surgeries- sure you have to wait longer, because if some emerg comes in I'm hoping they get pushed to the front of queue.
V said "I'd rather have freedom and choices rather than 'free' healthcare".
How much choice do you have? Most people, if they can afford healthcare, are limited to the hospitals and doctors nearby. How many people have the option of flying to the Mayoclinic or whatever is the best, to get the best. It's the same as in Canada. There's as much choice as where you live. I
Are things perfect in the land of universal healthcare? NO. Are they perfect in the US system? NO.
But, with commercials like this you are being sold a set of stats that doesn't take the whole picture. If you ask a Canadian which system they'd rather have (rather than rate your own system) I bet they'd stick with their own.