The Investor's Business Daily:
... here in the US men and women survived cancer at an average of just a bit better than 65%. In England only 46% survive. In the US, 93% of those diagnosed with diabetes receive treatment within six months; in Canada only 43% do, and in the UK only 15% do! For those seniors needing a hip replacement and getting one within six months, 15% get it done in the UK; 43% get it done in Canada ... and in the US 90% do! For those waiting to see a medical specialist, 23% of those in the US get in within four weeks, while 57% in Canada have not yet done so, and in the UK 60% are still waiting after four weeks.
When it comes to proper medical equipment, in the US there are 71 MRI or CT scanners available per million people. In Canada there are but 18, and in the UK there are only 14! Ah, but the best figure of all is this: 11.7% of those 'seniors' in the US with 'low incomes' say they are in excellent health, which in and of itself sounds rather low ... rather disconcerting ... and an indictment of the system itself, doesn't it? But in Canada only 5.8% do!
Yessiree bob, ya' jus' gotta' luv that collectivized, socialized medical care! Let's all go break a collective arm and enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine in the Commonwealth! (Canada) ... but heaven help you if you've got something really, really wrong. If that's the case, you'll be running south to the border faster than you can reach a specialist anywhere in Canada; of that we are certain.
First a comment. The stats could be wrong.
Are these stats gleaned for effect, meaning would the full stats reveal a different picture?
There are many different kinds of cancer and many are clustered geographically. Are Americans being cured of easier to cure cancers at all? Also, how many poor people without insurance in the U.S. die of cancer who are not reflected in those stats?
The rate of diabetes is higher in the U.S. isn't it? Are Americans in general eating more fast foods promoting diabetes? Don't the pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. benefit? Aren't the drugs pushed here more than in other countries? How severe is the diabetes in the other countries. There are borderline cases. Are they comparing raging diabetes against borderline cases at all?
The over use of MRI and CT scans has been reported. There are negative health consequences with their use. It is not a case of the more the better here. Why assume the more the better as the propaganda piece above does?
Seniors stating their own impression concerning their health is totally anecdotal and subjective: excellent health compared with what?
If the superrich have to wait as long as the poorest of the poor, I'm all for it. If cutting off the poor and then using the remaining stats to compare against other places were the poor are still included is fair to you, then you're pretty damned selfish.
Lastly, why was the U.S. compared against only England and Canada? What about France? What about all the other industrialized, first-world countries that also have socialized medicine. Which is the best, and is it better than the U.S.? Shouldn't we be doing what's best and not just better in some areas (maybe) than England and Canada? The U.N. rated Frances healthcare system as higher than the U.S. system.
How do we figure a way of having universal healthcare but fast for everyone? That's the right question. The status quo of money gets treatment stinks.