➢ the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and . . . we rank below . . . other advanced countries in life expectancy. [But i]n their 2006 book The Business of Health, economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider [found] out . . . the U.S. would rank [first] in life span . . . if homicides and accidents are factored out.
➢ Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases. . . Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania examined survival rates for lung, breast, prostate, colon and rectum cancers in 18 countries and found that Americans fared best. . . [and] we get quicker access to new cancer drugs than anyone else.
➢ The U.S. also excelled [in] surviving heart attacks for more than a year. . . our doctors and patients don't take no for an answer. The researchers attribute the results to "wider screening and more aggressive treatment."
➢ [Having uninsured] Americans . . . is our greatest shortcoming. . . But they have it better than you might think. Some 62% of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their medical care. . . they get a lot of uncompensated treatment from the most advanced, ambitious and capable medical system in the world.
➢ In Britain, . . .having guaranteed access to care doesn't mean you'll actually get it. 20% of British cancer patients who might be cured become incurable while awaiting . . . treatment.
Chapman’s conclusion:
A hammer is a marvelous tool, but [if] you took an expensive watch to a repairman and he pulled out a hammer, you would be extremely nervous, if not aghast. . . The challenge in this country is to extend coverage to the uninsured without degrading quality for everyone. . .
[T]he president and Congress . . . need to put down the hammer.
1 comment:
Hi Dad,
With all due respect, anyone who compares the US health care "system" circa 2009 AD to "an expensive watch" is too divorced from reality to be worth engaging in policy debate.
Note that even Chapman does not dispute any of Moore's facts - all documented at Moore's website - he simply emphasizes different ones. This is a bit like the strategy, in the global warming debate, of focusing on local "cooling trends" and other random factoids to demonstrate that global warming must be wrong.
Cheers,
Derek
Post a Comment