Form of government

[clocker]

Why not?
Having it both ways is the very cornerstone of Faux News.

[MagicNakor]

There is no United Nations International Health Organization; there is a World Health Organization which is part of the UN. Perhaps pedantic, but....

Investor's Business Daily has no record of any such article (via their website). They did run an editorial where the author claimed Professor Hawking would be dead if he lived in England due to the NHS; it was quickly refuted by Hawking (who both lives in England and uses the NHS). The IBD editorial ammendment acknowledges that Professor Hawking lives in England, but made no mention of his mortal status.

The WHO statistics are available and do not correspond with your citations, in value or detail. No matter, I'm game.

Cancer Survival Rates After 5 Years
Canada- ~62%
United Kingdom- ~58%
United States- ~66%

Cancer survival rates change depending on the type of cancer, its aggressiveness, location, etc. For example, the breast cancer survival rate is 83.9% in the US, 69.7% in the UK. It's a different picture once insurance is added to the equation: 85% survival rate with private insurance, 75% for uninsured/medicaid. The disparity in population demographic is intriguing, but I suspect has to do with the economic demographics. Colorectal cancer has a 5-year survival rate of 63% for the insured but 49% for the uninsured/Medicaid.

Diabetes Diagnosis/Treatment in 6 Months
This one is a bit bizarre. What is meant by receiving treatment? Insulin and blood sugar monitoring? This is done when the diagnosis is confirmed. Kidney dialysis? Limb amputation? With proper care, diabetes shouldn't advance that far. Check-ups are generally performed on an annual basis, as recommended. But as November is Diabetes Awareness Month:
Diabetes Mortality Rates
Canada- ~31,765 (2006)
United Kingdom- 5583 (2008, if the link doesn't work properly go directly from www.nchod.nhs.uk -> Indicators as the site uses Java)
United States- 71,382 (2007)
Adjusted by population:
Canada- mortality rate of 1.37%/diabetes rate of 5.87%
United Kingdom- mortality rate of 0.28%/diabetes rate of 2.84%
United States- mortality rate of 0.35%/diabetes rate of 5.71%
Note: The prevalence numbers are inaccurate (at least for Canada) as we passed the 2030 projections 3 years ago. Current prevalence indicates ~10% by 2020 due to a combination of aging populace and rising obesity. I suspect the other nations' figures are similarly inaccurate for the same indicators.

Seniors' Hip Replacement (within 6 months)
This fact seems to come from Congressman Mark Kirk (10th District, Illinois), or at least his website. He doesn't cite a source but he does have some pretty spiffy charts. In that spirit I now present two of my own charts:



Now, hip (and knee) replacements are usually considered elective surgery because it's not a life-threatening condition. This means that the wait-time for those surgeries can be quite lengthy, but the wait also has tremendous variance by year and even by province. If one decides to go to a private clinic to bypass the system, the average cost for a total hip replacement are:
Canada- $11,600 (including 11 days convalescence and physiotherapy)
United Kingdom- $11,285-$14,347
United States- $45,000

Since these statistics aren't done in 6 month measures but in annual:
Canada- 23,000 or 1 per 1,487 people
United Kingdom- 43,500 or 1 per 1,426 people
United States- 120,000 or 1 per 2,583 people

Osteoarthritis is the leading cause for hip (and knee) replacements. The incidence rate is similiar for all three countries:
Canada- 10% of the population (3.3 million)
United Kingdom- 8.5 million (13.8% of population)
United States- 27 million (8.7% of population)

Combined, these stats give us an approximate ratio of how many people who require surgery will receive it in a given year. Note that not all cases of osteoarthritis will require total hip replacement, so this is a rough calculation at best:
Canada- 0.0069 surgeries per patient per year
United Kingdom- 0.0051 surgeries per patient per year
United States- 0.0044 surgeries per patient per year


Specialist Referral Wait-Time
This is simply misleading and very difficult to verify. StatsCanada released a report in 2008 that suggests a median wait-time of 4.3 weeks for a specialist. 46.2% of Canadian patients waited less than one month for a specialist physician visit, 40.3% waited for 1-3 months, and 13.6% waited over three months. There are disparities and wait-times vary by speciality and province. The UK has a neat site where the average wait can be checked by area and by hospital, but as the only areas I'm even vaguely familiar with are Swansea and Leeds I'll leave that to anyone curious. By comparision, the median wait-time in the USA for a specialist is 20.5 days. For the family doctor it is 20.3 days. Medicaid is accepted by 55.4%. The figure sounds good (~20 days), but it is standardized for the nation. The data shows average wait-time and coverage is extremely regional: at 63(!) days for the general practioner, Boston is the longest wait in the country, Miami is the shortest at 7. 94% of family practices in Denver will accept Medicaid, in LA a mere 30%. In Dallas and Philadelphia, 8% of cardiologists will accept Medicaid. There are other interesting figures in that survey (in LA the shortest wait was 1 day, the longest 365+); it is interesting reading. Physicians per capita is similar in all three countries: 2.1 per 1000 in Canada, 2.2 per 1000 in the UK, 2.3 per 1000 in the USA. The Commonwealth Fund study seems to be where this "U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43%" wait-time comes from; however, the same study indicates 54% of adults with chronic conditions had access problems (defined as skipping medication or not filling an Rx, not visiting a doctor when having a meidcal problem, not getting a recommended test, treatment or followup) due to cost in the USA, 13% in the UK, 25% in Canada. It too is interesting reading, if nothing else check out the survey chartpack.

Number of MRI Scanners per million
Inaccurate once more.
Canada- 6.7 per million
United Kingdom- 5.6 per million
United States- 25.9 per million

Sure, the USA has a lot of MRI scanners. It also has a lot of CT scanners:
Canada- 12.7 per million
United Kingdom- 7.4 per million
United States- 34.3 per million

If it's a contest of who has the most toys, Japan has 43.1 MRI scanners per million and 97.3 CT scanners per million. The USA spends a lot of money on its health care system and those machines are expensive.

As a percentage of GDP:
Canada- 10.4%
United Kingdom- 8.7%
United States- 16%

and per capita:
Canada- $4406
United Kingdom- $3129
United States- $7538

Self-reporting Seniors in "excellent health"
This one reminds me of OAP coffee. It could be an excellent week or an awful one, depending on who turned up. A better metric is life expectancy for females and males at 65:
Canada- 21.3/18.1
United Kingdom- 20.2/17.6
United States- 19.8/17.1

It's well-known that with enough money, medical treatment/care is readily available and of excellent quality in the USA. Changes to its health care system aren't targeted to the people with enough money for readily available and excellent treatment.

Median Income by Household (in adjusted US dollars, after taxes)
Canada- $63,884
United Kingdom- $39,900
United States- $49,777

Self-reporting Economic Status

CA UK US
Much above average 10% 8% 9%
Somewhat above average 19% 13% 19%
Average 20% 22% 17%
Somewhat below average 19% 20% 22%
Much below average 26% 22% 28%
Not Sure 3% 7% 1%
Decline to Answer 4% 7% 3%

On the whole, it doesn't make sense to compare the USA's system (or proposed system) with those of Canada or the UK. They're two different animals. A more apt comparision would be with Switzerland, which makes health insurance compulsory for anyone living in Switzerland. The basic insurance is standardised throughout the country as its coverage is defined by the government; insurance companies are required to provide this package and are not allowed to make money off of it. I think it is analogous to Medicaid but am not sure. Extended coverage is allowed to be offered and these packages are where the companies make their money. There are regulations on costs (basic fees, maximum allowed deductibles) and offerings. However, while the basic package must be standard, the extended coverage is allowed to be discriminatory. I suspect it isn't mentioned as a model for comparision because Switzerland is relatively unknown amongst the general American populace; I would hope that the American policy makers are informed of the Swiss model.

Just For Fun (Switzerland)
5-Year Cancer Survival Rate: Colon 60% Breast 82%
Diabetes Mortality/Incidence Rate: 0.01%/4.68%
Physicians per 1000: 3.6
12.9 MRI scanners per million/32.8 CT scanners per million
Expenditure %GDP/per capita: 10.7%/$4810
Life Expectancy at 65 (female/male): 22.3/18.9
Median Household Income (after taxes, US$): $78,291

[999969999]

Cool map! Go Utah Mormons!

[bigboab]

Just For Fun (Switzerland)
5-Year Cancer Survival Rate: Colon 60% Breast 82%
Diabetes Mortality/Incidence Rate: 0.01%/4.68%
Physicians per 1000: 3.6
12.9 MRI scanners per million/32.8 CT scanners per million
Expenditure %GDP/per capita: 10.7%/$4810
Life Expectancy at 65 (female/male): 22.3/18.9
Median Household Income (after taxes, US$): $78,291

Would that be using the money that evaded taxing in our countries?

I don't see the weather or the population density taken into account with these stastistics. To quote an old joke:

American tourist to Glasgow taxi driver 'Does it never stop raining in Scotland'?
Taxi driver 'I do not know sir, I am only fifty years old'

[devilsadvocate]

I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care?

No, this:


A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.

OH NOES..................................j2k4 is posting chain emails



And he said he deletes them

[clocker]

I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care?

No, this:


A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:

U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:

U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":

U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6%

Ah, the illustrious "Investor's Business Daily".
The same brilliant fact checking organization that claimed that Stephen Hawking would be dead if subjected to "socialist" health care like England's.
(Hint #1: Hawking was born and has lived in England for 67 years...
Hint #2: Every single statistic in this "article" is absolute, unmitigated bullshit)

Way to bolster your argument there, Kev.
A magazine with zero credibility using a "study" from an organization that doesn't exist.

At least Glen Beck- malignant as he may be- admits he's a clown and entertainer (albeit a really shitty version of either) unlike these morons.

Got more lies you'd like to disseminate?

[bigboab]

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:
U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43%

If you are diagnosed with diabetes you must be receiving treatment\testing for something. Once diabetes is discovered;

(U.K.)If it is type 1 diabetes you get immediate medication. If you are diagnosed with severe type 2 then you are supplied with medication right away. If you have been diagnosed with the less severe type 2 diabetes you are told how to change your diet etc. to prevent it deterioating. I would count that as immediate treatment too.These are facts therefore, treatment afer diagnosis = 100%. I don't know how anyone can distort or dispute these figures.



p.s. You are not required to pay anyone.

[clocker]

An interesting (and fairly damning) insight into US health care here.

Naturally, it all comes down to money and given the right's aversion to regulation and "stifling" corporate greed, many more will die.

USA! USA! Fuck yeah!

[999969999]

[QUOTE=clocker;3528294]An interesting (and fairly damning) insight into US health care here.

Naturally, it all comes down to money and given the right's aversion to regulation and "stifling" corporate greed, many more will die.

USA! USA! Fuck yeah![/QUOTE]

Find a better country and move there, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[clocker]

And leave America in the hands of twits like you?