Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-26-2007, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Holly Springs, NC USA
3,457 posts, read 4,636,650 times
Reputation: 1907

Advertisements

Cancer Society's Deadly Medicine

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2005).

The American Cancer Society announced recently that it will spend its entire advertising budget next year not on urging Americans to stop smoking or get mammograms, but on campaigning for a government takeover of the U.S. health-care system. This is perverse: It's hard to imagine anything worse for cancer patients than government-run health care.

For all its faults and all the criticism that it has received, the United States' free-market health-care system has made America the place you want to be if you have a serious illness.

Cancer patients understand this. The overall five-year survival rate for all types of cancer for men in America is 66.3 percent, and 62.9 percent for women, the best outcome in the world.

We shouldn't be surprised. The one common characteristic of all national health-care systems is that they ration care.

Sometimes they ration it explicitly, denying certain types of treatment altogether. More often, they ration more indirectly - imposing global budgets or other cost constraints that limit the availability of high-tech medical equipment or imposing long waits on patients seeking treatment.

In the United States, there are no such government-set limits, meaning that the most advanced treatment options are far more available. This translates directly into saved lives.

Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Fewer than 20 percent of American men with prostate cancer will die from it, against 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men. Even in Canada, prostate cancer kills a quarter of men diagnosed with the disease.

A big part of the reason is that, in most countries with national health insurance, the preferred treatment for prostate cancer is . . . nothing.

Prostate cancer is a slow-moving disease. Most patients are older and will live for several years after diagnosis. Therefore it is not cost-effective in a world of socialized medicine to treat the disease too aggressively. The approach saves money - but at a high human cost.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer. For instance, only 30 percent of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to fully 74 percent in Britain, 62 percent in New Zealand, 58 percent in France, 57 percent in Germany, 53 percent in Australia and 36 percent in Canada.

And less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.

Even when there is a desire to offer treatment, national health-care systems often lack the resources to provide it. In Britain, for example, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment under Britain's national health service are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.

In Canada, the Society of Surgical Oncology recommends that cancer surgery take place within two weeks of preoperative tests. Yet one study indicates that median waiting time for cancer surgery in Canada ranged from 29 days for colorectal cancer to more than two months for urinary cancers. Radiation treatment and new therapies, such as brachytherapy, are also far less available than they are in the United States. Consider this: seven out of 10 Canadian provinces report sending prostate-cancer patients to the United States for radiation treatment.

But the advantages of free-market health care go far beyond an absence of rationing. With no price controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead to innovative breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical technologies. U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the last 20 years.

In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the last 30 years. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here.

If the American Cancer Society got the government-run national health-care system it wants, we would eliminate consumer choice and put a stop to the innovations we count on to improve our health. It would condemn thousands of cancer sufferers to waiting lists and denied care. In the end, it would cost lives.

If the Cancer Society truly wants to help Americans suffering from that complex array of diseases called cancer, it will get back to campaigning for mammograms and quitting smoking, and keep the government out of the picture.

This article appeared in the New York Post on September 10, 2007.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2007, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,986,797 times
Reputation: 604
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the hard right Cato Institute and coauthor of Wealthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care For Me and How to Free It For Me and People Who Make As Much Money As I Do(2005).

The American Cancer Society announced recently that it will spend its entire advertising budget next year not on urging Americans to stop smoking or get mammograms, but on campaigning for a government takeover of the U.S. health-care system, also known as a government guarantee of health insurance with privately-run hospitals, which obviously translates into a government takeover of the U.S. health-care system. This is perversely un-Catoistic: It's hard to imagine anything worse for cancer patients than government-run health care, except for no cancer treatment at all /bankruptcy because of inability to pay, which is, of course, what many cancer sufferers in the US get, but that's okay because they don't deserve it.

For all its faults and all the criticism that it has received, the United States' free-market health-care system has made America the place you want to be if you have a serious illness and are rich.

Cancer patients who are rich and therefore can afford to be cancer patients, rather than merely "cancer sufferers," understand this. The overall five-year survival rate for all types of cancer for men in America is 66.3 percent, and 62.9 percent for women, the best outcome in the world, especially considering that Americans have a higher death rate from cancer and are more likely to be diagnosed with it, but not surprising considering that we spend quite a large amount of money on health care and go in for cancer tests way more than people in other countries.

We shouldn't be surprised. The one common characteristic of all national health-care systems is that they ration care according to need, rather than ability to pay. What horror! Monsters.

Sometimes they ration it explicitly, denying certain types of treatment altogether. More often, they ration more indirectly - imposing global budgets or other cost constraints that limit the availability of high-tech medical equipment or imposing long waits on patients seeking treatment. Treatment in the US is very preferrable, as we merely keep costs down by denying insurance/healthcare to those with pre-existing conditions or without the ability to pay, therefore freeing up the hospitals for people who REALLY DESERVE THEM.

In the United States, there are no such government-set limits, instead we have the infinitely more preferrable insurance company-set limits, meaning that the most advanced treatment options are far more available for people with money. This translates directly into saved middle class and above lives.

Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Fewer than 20 percent of American men with prostate cancer will die from it, against 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men. Even in Canada, prostate cancer kills a quarter of men diagnosed with the disease. Stranglely, however, American men are much more likely to die earlier in general than people in Canada, France, and Germany. That doesn't matter because healthcare is only about prostate cancer, and it's an absolute certainty that we'd spend a lot less on cancer treatment and development if everyone had insurance, since the government would seize all the hospitals, drug/medical companies and force them to obey its will, rather than just subsidizing people's health insurance.

A big part of the reason is that, in most countries with national health insurance, the preferred treatment for prostate cancer is . . . nothing, similar to the preferred treatment for prostate cancer for those without the ability to pay in America. They don't matter. Let us continue.

Prostate cancer is a slow-moving disease. Most patients are older and will live for several years after diagnosis. Therefore it is not cost-effective in a world of socialized medicine to treat the disease too aggressively. The approach saves money - but at a high human cost, though not high enough to bring the lifespan of the average European below that of the average American.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer. For instance, only 30 percent of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to fully 74 percent in Britain, 62 percent in New Zealand, 58 percent in France, 57 percent in Germany, 53 percent in Australia and 36 percent in Canada.

And less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent. In these instances, it should be ignored that the US Government spends far more on cancer research and treatment than in these other countries. The fact that the government does this is irrelevant. Our better cancer survival rate is due entirely to the Free Market-ness of our system.

Even when there is a desire to offer treatment, national health-care systems, which no powerful figures in American politics are proposing, often lack the resources to provide it. It should be ignored that America does, as we spend way more on healthcare than those countries do. In Britain, for example, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment under Britain's national health service are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered. This may be related to the people in those countries not worrying about cancer as much as we do, but that doesn't matter. Universal healthcare is evil.

In Canada, the Society of Surgical Oncology recommends that cancer surgery take place within two weeks of preoperative tests. Yet one study indicates that median waiting time for cancer surgery in Canada ranged from 29 days for colorectal cancer to more than two months for urinary cancers. In America the waiting time for cancer surgery ranges from immediate to never, depending on how rich you are. This is very preferrable. Radiation treatment and new therapies, such as brachytherapy, are also far less available to that minority of the population with the money to pay for them than they are in the United States. Consider this: seven out of 10 Canadian provinces report sending prostate-cancer patients with the ability to pay to the United States for radiation treatment.

But the advantages of free-market health care go far beyond an absence of rationing according to need, replaced with super awesome wealth rationing. With no price controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead to innovative breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical technologies, as well as super-high costs and inavailability to a large, unimportant segment of the population that doesn't usually vote for our preferred political party. U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the last 20 years, which is REALLY surprising considering the fact that we spend very little on healthcare and are a small, non-powerful, poor country.

In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the last 30 years. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. That would change drastically if everyone had access to healthcare.

If the American Cancer Society got the government-run national health-care system it wants, we would eliminate consumer choice (between having healthcare and paying rent) and put a stop to the innovations we count on to improve our (us, the wealthy libertarians of America's) health. It would condemn thousands of cancer sufferers to waiting lists and denied care while guaranteeing basic cancer treatment to people who currently don't have it but shouldn't anyways, since they're not real Americans. In the end, it would cost lives, even if it were fewer than the number of lives currently lost from people not having access to for-profit insurance and healthcare.

If the Cancer Society truly wants to help Americans suffering from that complex array of diseases called cancer, it will get back to campaigning for mammograms and quitting smoking, and keep the government out of the picture, so that we can go back to everybody paying for everything out of their own pocket and most of the poor dying at 40-45, because they're useless.

This article appeared in the New York Post on September 10, 2007.

**** the Cato Institute! By the way.

ACS :: Healthcare 101: Make It Adequate, Available, Affordable (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/SPC/content/SPC_1_Access_to_Care_Campaign_07.asp - broken link)
ACS :: ACS Campaign Urges Greater Healthcare Access (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_ACS_Campaign_Urges_Greater_Healthcare_Acc ess.asp - broken link)

Does this article say anything about going to a NHS-style system? No it doesn't. But letting a bunch of hypercapitalist right-wing ideolouges decide what's best for cancer patients rather than the ACS is an awesome idea.

But as for "socialized medicine making people forsake cancer treatment, how about this from the ACS" :::

"Bass is far from alone, according to ACS national volunteer president Richard Wender, MD. About one-third of cancer patients report difficulty paying their medical bills, and nearly half skimp on treatments because of the cost, he said at the conference."

Nearly HALF??? Go CATO!!!! Actually **** them. I hate think-tanks.

And it's not like I think there's nothing to be proud of about the US healthcare system. We have a higher cancer rate than other countries... therefore, our doctors are better at treating cancer and our government funds WAY more cancer research than other countries. Somehow, according to the CATO institute everyone having insurance would destroy that. I don't know how.

Last edited by fishmonger; 09-26-2007 at 04:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top