Conservatives who argue against universal health care point most convincingly to the success the US has, compared to European countries, in treating cancer. This new study indicates that, while the US has better survival rates in certain kinds of cancer cases (including breast and prostate cancer), compared to Europe overall, when you compare it to developed European countries -- and don't include former Eastern Bloc countries like Poland -- it lags behind in other sorts of cancer cases (like cervical, ovarian, stomach, and Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins lymphoma). Cohn says:
If you really want to know how universal health insurance per se affects the diffusion of cancer drugs, a much more logical comparison would be between the U.S. and some of the countries that more closely resemble us in terms of economic development--and that don't spent quite so little money on their own medical care systems. And guess what happens if you do that? A very different picture emerges: We may be atop the world when it comes to getting new cancer drugs to our patients, but we're hardly alone on that perch. Three other countries--Austria, France, and Switzerland--are right there with us.
Kevin Drum sums the case up nicely, at Washington Monthly:
I suppose you're all getting tired of hearing this, but the conclusion here is pretty much the same as it is every time you look at the U.S. vs. Europe: the differences are almost entirely about money. If you have a national healthcare system but you spend way less than the United States (as Great Britain does), you can provide good but not great service. If you spend modestly less than the United States (as France does) you can provide healthcare every bit as good as ours — and cover every single citizen in the bargain.
And what if you actually spend as much as the United States — but you have to put up with our ragtag private delivery system? Then you get healthcare about as good as France's, except that it doesn't cover everyone, it bankrupts large companies, and it goes away anytime you get laid off. And all for only about 40% more than anyone else in the world pays. Pretty good system, eh?
Why is that so hard for Sanjay Gupta to understand?
No comments:
Post a Comment