These statistics don't lie. I have many times mentioned survival rates here in the U.S. versus government controlled healthcare systems in Canada, the U.K. and other parts of Europe,
such as these:
Average cancer survival rate in U.S: 68%
Average cancer survival rate in Canada: 55%
Average cancer survival rate in Europe: 45%
Average prostate cancer survival rate in U.S: 81%
Average prostate cancer survival rate in Britain: 43%
Average breast cancer survival rate in U.S: 83.9%
Average breast cancer survival rate in Europe: 73.1%
Average breast cancer survival rate in the U.K: 69.7%
Far more statistics are shown by Deroy Murdock over at the NRO today:
Government Medicine Kills.
As the Senate Finance Committee prepares to vote on its Obamacare bill, it would behoove senators to ask themselves why on earth America should move even one inch closer to the government-driven health-care model that plagues Canadians and Britons. Thankfully, the Finance Committee bill lacks the government option for health insurance that sends liberal salivary glands gushing. Still, the bill is awash in mandates, regulations, subsidies, taxes, and plenty of other potential distortions that help make single-payer medical systems deadly.
According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, there were 26.6 MRI machines in the U.S. per million people in 2004. In Canada, there were 4.9 such devices, while Britain enjoyed 5. For every 100,000 Americans, 2006 saw 436.8 receive angioplasties. Among Canadians, that figure was 135.9, while only 93.2 Britons per 100,000 got that cardiac procedure.
Here's the telling chart comparing our healthcare results with those of Canada and the U.K:
Why would anyone want to change our more successful system to the less successful of Canada and especially the U.K? It's not about healthcare. Never was. It's about control. Always was. If increased competition is to be had, then Obama can make healthcare portable across state lines without spending one red cent:
Why would anyone want to change our more successful system to the less successful of Canada and especially the U.K? It's not about healthcare. Never was. It's about control. Always was. If increased competition is to be had, then Obama can make healthcare portable across state lines without spending one red cent:
Gotta be careful with the canada statistics. For one, its only as high as it is because they can come over the border and use our healthcare system when their's fails. Or from any country for that matter; it would be interesting for someone to track and see (if obamacare goes thru) if there can be a causal drop in worldwide survival rates for various illness. For two (this is more of a question), as I understand it, they do not have the same type of freedom of information regarding healthcare in canada, compared to what we have here. So where do these statics come from for canada?
ReplyDeleteVery astute observation!
ReplyDelete