Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Socialized Medicine

Barack Obama wants to bring us universal medical care. Sally Pipes explains why this is just a terrible idea in an essay at

Given the aspirations of Democrats to impose a European style health care system on us Pipes' column is both timely and important. For that reason I've placed almost all of it here on Viewpoint in hopes that readers will be more likely to examine it.

Pipes writes:

Take the much-vaunted Canadian system. More than 825,000 Canadian citizens are currently on waiting lists for surgery and other necessary treatments. Fifteen years ago, the average wait between a referral from a primary-care doctor to treatment by a specialist was around nine weeks. Today, that wait is over 16 weeks.

That's almost double what doctors consider clinically reasonable. As Canadian physician Brian Day explained to The New York Times, Canada "is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

In part, these waits are due to a doctor shortage. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada ranks 24th out of 28 countries in doctors per thousand people.

Why so few doctors? Over the past decade, about 11 percent of physicians trained in Canadian medical schools have moved to the United States. That's because doctors' salaries in Canada are negotiated, set and paid for by provincial governments and held down by cost-conscious budget analysts. Today, in fact, the average Canadian doctor earns only 42 percent of what a doctor earns in the United States.

Canada also limits access to common medical technologies. When compared with other OECD countries, Canada is 13th out of 24 in access to magnetic resonance imagings, 18th of 24 in access to computed tomography scanners, and seventh of 17 in access to mammograms.

The problems plaguing Canada are characteristic of all universal health care systems.

In Britain, more than 1 million sick citizens are currently waiting for hospital admission. Another 200,000 are waiting just to get on a waiting list. Each year, Britain's National Health Service cancels around 100,000 operations.

Britain even has a government agency explicitly tasked with limiting people's access to prescription drugs. Euphemistically called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness, the agency determines which treatments the British health care system covers. More often than not, saving money takes priority over saving lives.

In 2008, for instance, NICE refused to approve the lung cancer drug Tarceva. Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients - and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the United Kingdom - NICE determined that the drug was too expensive to cover relative to its effectiveness. As of August 2008, England is one of only three countries in Western Europe that denies citizens access to Tarceva.

Britain's behavior is typical - every European government rations drugs to save money. Eighty-five new drugs hit the U.S. market between 1998 and 2002. During that same time period, only 44 of those drugs became available in Europe.

The evidence clearly indicates that patients under socialized medicine are suffering. Why, then, do countries with government-run health care consistently outrank the United States on international quality surveys?

It's not because the American health care system is inferior. It's because these surveys use deeply flawed metrics that don't reflect health care quality.

Case in point: The World Health Organization rankings of overall health system performance placed the United States 37th out of 191 countries. That's behind not only Canada, Britain and France, but even countries like Costa Rica, Morocco and Cyprus.

Life expectancy accounted for 25 percent of a nation's WHO ranking. But life expectancy is the function of a variety of factors. Medical care is just one of them. Just as important are a nation's homicide rate, the number of accidents, diet trends, ethnic diversity and much more.

Another factor accounting for 25 percent of a nation's ranking was "distribution of health," or fairness. By this logic, treating everyone exactly the same is more important than treating people well. So long as everyone is equal - even if they're equally miserable - a nation will do quite well in the WHO rankings.

In measuring the quality of a health care system, what really matters is how well it serves those who are sick. And it's here that America really excels.

According to an August 2008 study published in Lancet Oncology, the renowned British medical journal, Americans have a better than five-year survival rate for 13 of the 16 most prominent cancers when compared with their European and Canadian counterparts.

With breast cancer, for instance, the survival rate among American women is 83.9 percent. For women in Britain, it's just 69.7 percent. For men with prostate cancer, the survival rate is 91.9 percent here but just 73.7 percent in France and 51.1 percent in Britain.

American men and women are more than 35 percent more likely to survive colon cancer than their British counterparts.

It's no wonder then that foreign dignitaries living in countries with socialized health care systems routinely come to this country when they need top-flight medical treatment.

When Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery in 2006, he traveled to the Cleveland Clinic - often considered America's best hospital for cardiac care. When Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach, who had denounced a two-tier health care system for Canadians, needed breast cancer surgery herself in 2007, she headed to a California hospital and paid out of pocket.

So much for the "free" health care they could have received at home.

As for the supposed cost advantages of socialized medicine? Those are illusory, too. True, other developed nations may spend less on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States does - but so does Sudan. Without considering value, such statistical evaluations are worthless.

And one of the primary reasons health care costs more in America is that we are a wealthy country that demands the best. And, we're investing a lot more in medical research.

The United States produces over half of the $175 billion in health care technology products purchased globally. In 2004, the federal government funded medical research to the tune of $18.4 billion. By contrast, the European Union - which has a significantly larger population than the United States - allocated funds equal to just $3.7 billion for medical research.

Between 1999 and 2005, the United States was responsible for 71 percent of the sales of new pharmaceutical drugs. The next two largest pharmaceutical markets - Japan and Germany - account for just 4 percent each.

While no one can deny that there are significant problems in the American health care system, overall it provides exceptional value. The ideologues who claim we'd be better off under socialized medicine are massively wrong. Government-run health care has proven to be heartless and uncaring - and the inferior treatments it provides come with a very steep price tag.

So, why do the Democrats want to kill the goose that's laying golden eggs? Maybe that's like asking why birds fly. It's just what birds do.


Brave New World

We've written much about Obama's vote to permit the killing of infants in Illinois hospitals and the seeming indifference to this among the media and other Democrat support groups.

That so few people seem to care is quite frightening for several reasons, one of which is that we seem to be well down a horrifying slippery slope. If people aren't roused about allowing infants who survive an abortion attempt to die, by what logic will we be able to persuade them that unwanted infants born in the normal fashion shouldn't be allowed to die? If the relevant criterion for life and death is whether the child is wanted there's no rationale for permitting infanticide of unwanted babies which the mother has tried to abort, but not permit it in the case of unwanted babies which were never aborted.

It's not hard to imagine the arguments that will be presented on behalf of allowing mothers to choose to allow their babies to die after they've been born: Many mothers, we'll be told, are too poor to have an abortion so why should we "burden her" with the child, to use Senator Obama's felicitous expression, when she wouldn't be forced to keep it were she wealthier? We're discriminating against poor women, don't you see, by not giving them the same right that wealthier women have. Besides, making infanticide an option will reduce the number of abortions. Et cetera.

We're headed for a day when a mother in labor will be asked whether she wants to keep the child, and, if the response is no, the child will wind up being discarded like the placenta and other medical waste.

This is the Brave New World of liberalism. It's change we can believe in. It's the future that awaits us under leaders who think as does Barack Obama.


Pelosi on Abortion

There are at least three peculiarities in Nancy Pelosi's Meet the Press analysis of Barack Obama's fumbling response to Rick Warren's question about when a child should be given human rights:

First, there is absolutely no question about when life begins. There is no point in the development of a human being from conception to death at which the individual is not alive. Life is a continuum, it had only one beginning and that was with the first cell.

Second, it's bizarre to say that the Catholic Church has only held its present policy on abortion for fifty years. The Church has opposed abortion for almost 2000 years. Ms Pelosi is getting hammered for her "mangling" of catholic doctrine, but she said today that she stands by it even though Catholic theologians and historians have said she's wrong.

Third, I have never heard of anyone in the GOP opposing birth control. Perhaps she's referring to the unwillingness of Republicans to subsidize birth control with tax dollars, but if this is what she means, her claim that the people who oppose a particular program are opposing birth control is either stupid or dishonest.

So what shall we conclude about Ms Pelosi? Was she making a simple mistake about the Church's position on abortion? How can that be if she has studied this matter for years as she claims? Was she misinterpreted? But we have the video. What other options are open to us short of concluding that she simply lied?