There's an interesting argument made on Comment Central by the Fink this evening. Some might remember that the other week Rudy Giulliani upset the apple cart by running an ad that compared prostate cancer survival rates in the US to the UK and then made the link that the lower rates in the UK were due to the fact that it was a socialised medical system.
As the post argues, when you compare the method by which the two systems operate it stands to reason that outcomes in a private system will be better than in the social one. This is not to say that there are not arguments that the former might be unfair. However the Finks argument is compelling as to why the latter will produce less satisfactory outcomes.
6 comments:
One big difference, that never occurred to me until I came here, might just be social in origin. I'm British and when I was in Britain, I never went to the doctor. Not because I doubted their quality or their skill, but because I just wouldn't go to the doctor unless something was really seriously wrong. Fomr my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of life in the US, I don't think that Americans are like that -- they seem to me to be very keen to go to the doctors (and doctors seem keen to prescribe drugs to them). Whether or not that's a sensible way to go about things, a corrollary benefit is almost bound to be an increase in cancer survival rates, it seems to me.
I've got an inherent prejudice here. When I was in high school our Modern Studies teacher was a bearded, leather elbowed type. He made a suggestion that the US healthcare system was more geared towards preventative medicine (due to the nature of insurers seeking to keep the outlay down) that the UK (which had much less pressure to treat causes rather than symptoms). This makes at least some sense to me and I'd guess that the American model detects cancer and other illnesses earlier and attempts to treat them more quickly and perhaps even aggressively than here.
My teacher appeared to be typical of his type and thought the UK system was still better because (paraphrasing) only the rich could be treated like this in the US.
WTF? This discourse is fair too sensible.
And the treatment Giuliani received?
Where was it developed?
Ah, Europe! Denmark in fact.
The NHS is fine in theory. In practice it is a deception practised on a people. It claims to be a comprehensive health system - 'go and see your GP' etc. But what they don't tell you is that your GP s not permitted to diagnose certain illnesses, and that his medical knowledge advances at the pace of a snail.
If you wish to seek further help, which in many cases is necessary, you cannot without being referred by your GP. His referrals are strictly limited. If you don't have an illness covered by targets, you might as well go home and die - or go abroad where you can be told the truth.
I owe my life to abandoning the NHS completely and moving to another country to live most of the time. The UK is bloody dangerous. It has no health system for many people who need it, and it lies. 'you must be depressed' etc.
the country i live in is cheaper, and so not only a choice for rich people to take - but many will have to quit the UK purely because it doesn't have a national health service. it has a national lie, because no one dares to tell the truth - that the NHS is a very limited health service, and for many peple is a National Health Preventing Service.
It is not only prostate cancer, but nearly every illness. Go abroad is my advice if you want to survive. Your doctor is told to lie to you in the UK, by the quango that runs his industry - the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.
If you wish to research other alternatives yourself, you are told by your GP 'there is nothing wrong you' so why do it? And if you try anyway despite being told continuously by the doctor, who you once trusted that 'there is nothing wrong', you will not be able to get other help without a GP referral.
The only way out of the bind is to get out of the UK. Then you are not guaranteed to find a good doctor either, but at least you will not be continually lied to as a government-run programme, and you at least have a chance.
The NHS kills hundreds of thusands of people needlessly every year. I had heart problems and was arriving in resusucitation where they were able (clearly) to stop me dying. When I asked what was the matter, they said 'come back in 3 months' and we''ll see. I then collapsed again, fortunately in another country the next time, where they were aghast that I had not been given magnesium intravenously, as that should be standard procedure for heart patients.
In the UK they don't do this. God knows why...except for farm animals. When they collapse, the vet invariably reaches for mgnesium.
In my case, my heart startd to improve from the moment I had the magnesium shot. Before that I was downhill all the way.
If you want to live, in the UK, it seems you have to see a vet. Animals get private medicine, because farmers lose money if they die, so an injection costing around UKL 20 a time is given. Not though to British residents, who are clearly regarded as expendable.
If you don't mind dying for lack of a teatment costing UKL 20, then you can continue to back the NHS. Otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to get away with gross negligence causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year any longer. Guiliano has spotted merely the tip of the iceberg.
tyger, what does it matter where it was developed?
Post a Comment