snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Medical

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21 December 2009, 03:08 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,700
Ambulance Health statistics from Investors' Business Daily

Article from the "Investor's Business Daily." It provides some 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%


I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable
to England or Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen.. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn
to accept the inconveniences of old age." WELL, SHIP HIS ASS TO CANADA OR ENGLAND ! (with a one way ticket)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23 December 2009, 04:44 AM
itry2brational
 
Posts: n/a
D'oh! I think these stats are fake

And here's why:

The Investor's Business Daily has no article with this data.

There is no such entity as the United Nation's 'International' Health Organization. Presumably the author was attempting to claim the source of the 'data' came from the U.N.'s WORLD Health Organization.

None of these statistics can be gathered from the data on the WHO's website. Especially something as specific as a hip replacement.

The data is seemingly in direct conflict with data on the WHO website/survey.

And my final reason why this must be fake...its plastered all over the right-wing blogosphere being touted as real data. It does in fact have quite a following.

The version I received from my hard right-wing grandfather in law has the reference to the Investor's Business Daily stripped out (only barely) but none of the people forwarding it on and on have bothered to notice that there is no 'International' Health Organization.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22 March 2010, 06:33 PM
Reason
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I emailed the IBD about this and they responded with a pdf that did have the article in it.

Here is a screenshot.



It sources Rep. Mark Kirk and another site pointed to this page.

http://kirk.house.gov/index.php?opti...3621&Itemid=88
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25 March 2010, 01:35 AM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

One thing to consider about statistics like this is that the rate of specific screening tests doesn't necessarily indicate anything regarding the availability of healthcare. Specifically with regard to mammograms and prostate screening, recommendations have recently been changed because the old recommendations resulted in too many false positives compared to actual cases diagnosed. There was a dustup in the US when a task force recommended that women under 50 be screen every two years instead of every year. This post and this post from Respectful Insolence cover the topic fairly well, IMO.

Similarly, the rate of specialists or expensive equipment per x population doesn't actually support any claim about health care quality.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25 March 2010, 01:44 AM
Cervus's Avatar
Cervus Cervus is offline
 
Join Date: 21 October 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,644
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
Similarly, the rate of specialists or expensive equipment per x population doesn't actually support any claim about health care quality.
Exactly; there could be 50 doctors specializing in my condition, but if none of them accept my insurance, or if their out-of-pocket costs are too high, I'm screwed anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25 March 2010, 02:00 AM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 11,841
Default

As a percentage of GNP, the US spends 53 percent more than Canada on health care. The US/UK disparity is even greater. This is a more likely explanation of why the US has more MRI machines and generally shorter waits than the differences in how health care is funded.

Also, the bill just passed does little to nothing to make the US health care system like that in Britain or Canada. The closest comparison might be with Switzerland, but US health care spending is about 30 percent higher (as a percentage of national income) than even the expensive Swiss system.

This isn't to argue that the OP stats are correct, just that even if they are partially correct, it doesn't prove anything concerning the health bill.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25 March 2010, 02:14 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,360
Default

The same publication that said that if Steven Hawking were served by the NHS, he would be dead by now. And yes, from now on whenever they print anything, that is going to be my response. That was such a huge gaffe that it completely destroyed their credibility, as far as I'm concerned.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 August 2010, 10:51 PM
BeReasonable
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I can't believe so many people are avoiding the original post and why it is here. Clearly the point is to show Americans where our healthcare stands in comparison to other countries. Many people have been using Canada and England as role models to what we could aspire to if we would simply embrace socialized medicine. This research shows survival rates and waiting times for treatment in all three countries. Clearly the USA wins since our survival rates are higher and treatment waiting times are shorter. Some of these posters are clearly stating that it's not fair that they cannot get free healthcare. You want socialized medicine? Go live in a country like Canada and try it out for a while to see how you like it. You will pay taxes for healthcare and then die waiting for treatment! That's why Canadians come here so often. Personally I wish we could go back to the days when insurance was practically non-existent. We went to the doctor and paid for his services, and he set his prices. Why did anyone think that adding a middleman (insurance company) would lower the bill? (he gets paid too you know) Major medical insurance used to be affordable, but now everyone wants their insurance to cover everything. And now we want to hand it over to the government??? Government steps in and quality drops every time. Who the heck wants Uncle Sam taking care of them? Socialized medicine will not happen overnight. It will come slowly so as not to scare everyone... baby steps. This healthcare reform is the first step. And no, I do not currently have insurance... it's too expensive! I have budgeted money just for doctor expenses, and I pay more now to cover the amounts doctors are losing to insurance companies. Peoples priorities are messed up these days. If you have a cell phone or an i-pod or a computer, then you can put money aside for doctors expenses too!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:01 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
Many people have been using Canada and England as role models to what we could aspire to if we would simply embrace socialized medicine.
Except the Health care reform bill is nothing like socialized medicine, so what does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
This research shows survival rates and waiting times for treatment in all three countries.
No it doesn't because nobody can substantiate the supposed "data." First there's no such thing as "The United Nations International Health Organization." There is the World Health Organization & they don't have any such statistics anywhere on their website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
Clearly the USA wins since our survival rates are higher and treatment waiting times are shorter.
Than why do these other countries have longer lifespans than the US?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:04 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,295
Chicken

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
Personally I wish we could go back to the days when insurance was practically non-existent. We went to the doctor and paid for his services, and he set his prices.
And people paid using chickens rather than money, I presume.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:12 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,271
Default

And the doctor might drain blood out of your arm or use leaches to "cure" you.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:16 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
Peoples priorities are messed up these days. If you have a cell phone or an i-pod or a computer, then you can put money aside for doctors expenses too!
How many iPods does it take for a cholecystectomy, I wonder.

Welcome to the boards. It may interest you to know we have plenty of posters here living under the yoke of socialized medicine (actual socialized medicine, as well as other sorts of universal health care), and I do not recall a single one of them gazing enviously at we Americans who have had to file bankruptcy because we cannot afford both medical care and food.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:26 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,360
Default

Quote:
And no, I do not currently have insurance... it's too expensive! I have budgeted money just for doctor expenses, and I pay more now to cover the amounts doctors are losing to insurance companies.
Welcome to the board.

Here's a FactCheck article that explains the problem with using cancer survival rates to claim that health care in the U.S. is superior.

Among many good observations, note this point from the article:

Quote:
But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. The American Cancer Society found that the five-year survival rates for colorectal cancer averaged 63 percent for the privately insured but 49 percent for the uninsured.
Those survival statistics that you are so proud of don't apply to you because you are uninsured.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:30 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,383
Default

I'm still chuckling at the thought of Mark Kirk being a reliable source of these statistics. This is the guy who:

1) Claimed to have served in Iraq, but did not.
2) Claimed to have served in the 1990 ('91?) invasion of Iraq, but did not
3) Claimed he was named the Navy's "Intelligence Officer of the Year", when in actuality, his unit (not he himself) won some other award that was not bestowed by the Navy at all.
4) Claimed to have commanded the war room at the pentagon.

Where did he get these stats? Did he compile them himself? Or make them up?

ETA: He also claimed that he came under fire while in Afghanistan. And that he was a kindergarten teacher. He has an interesting relationship with the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:46 PM
Terra Firma
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmm. This article from Businessweek tells quite a different story: "The Doctor Will See You - In Three Months."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05 August 2010, 11:54 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 5,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
I can't believe so many people are avoiding the original post and why it is here. Clearly the point is to show Americans where our healthcare stands in comparison to other countries. Many people have been using Canada and England as role models to what we could aspire to if we would simply embrace socialized medicine. This research shows survival rates and waiting times for treatment in all three countries. Clearly the USA wins since our survival rates are higher and treatment waiting times are shorter.
No, not "clearly". What the article "clearly" shows is that if you look at a table with hundreds or thousands of statistics you can cherry pick ten or so that show the effect your have already decided must be present.

In addition, many of the individual "statistics" are questionable.
Quote:
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Has zero information content. It does not say that patients in the US die less often from cancer than in England or Canada. It may well be that people are diagnosed with cancer earlier in the US and hence are more likely to survive 5 years regardless of their treatment. Like Natalie posted, mammograms and prostate screening have recently been shown to have nearly zero affect on cancer survivability for a large number of people. Yes, people are diagnosed with those cancers earlier because of the use of unneeded screening but their ultimate fate is unchanged by having that information earlier.

So, lets add a few of our own "cherry picked" stats:

Yearly number of families declaring bankruptcy because of medical expenses:
US: 1,500,000 (60% of all bankruptcies in the US)
England : a few thousand
Canada: a few thousand

Cost of medically unneeded MRI and CT scans:
US: $30,000,000,000 (that works out to $100 per US citizen per year.)
England: ? (a heck of a lot less than $30B)
Canada: ? (a heck of a lot less than $30B)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 August 2010, 08:01 PM
opposite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just got this email recently as well forwarded from someone at work and decided to see if any of these statistics and "facts" could actually be verified by independent sources. Below are my findings which I endeavored to cite the sources of in every single case relying on the WHO (as opposed to the imaginary UN IHO), the OECD and other national health care agencies and associations as much as possible

#1
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%


We begin our journey into the world of unverified cancer statistics with the claim that the US has higher cancer survival rates 5 years after diagnosis which is a wonderful set of numbers. However, there are no sources (providing evidence for ones claims is quite annoying, right?) and what these numbers fail to consider are important issues such as the percentage of the population who receive an accurate received diagnosis, whether 5 years after diagnosis the patient was living cancer free or still subject to chemo-therapy treatment or the total number of incidents. Wouldn’t a reasonable person much rather live in England or Canada if the incidence incidences of cancer in these countries were one tenth of what they are in the USA?
But, as promised, let’s get some hard verified numbers in here. First, some statistics from the United Kingdom, aka England. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/can0410.pdf (notice the “.GOV” in the URL, that shit is official!!!)

Counting 109,747 incidents per year and tracking them for 5 years their average survival rate came out to be around 58% (63,585 patients still alive after 5 years). Notice how that rate is a full 12% higher than the rate quoted by the author of the prior email? That’s so far beyond any measurement error as to defy credulity.

But maybe they made the same mistake with 5 year survival rates for US cancer patients. Let’s have a look!
For US statistics the best source of five year survival rates is the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (holy mother of God, long words!) or SEER program which is run by the National Cancer Institute. They were nice enough to come up with a similar set of statistics already calculated for us. According to them (source: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html#survival) “the overall 5-year relative survival for 1999-2006 from 17 SEER geographic areas was 66.0%. Five-year relative survival by race and sex was: 66.8% for white men; 67.0% for white women; 60.6% for black men; 54.9% for black women”. It needs to be noted here that the 17 SEER geographic areas only cover about 40% of the US population, but we’ll just let that stand since Joe, the author of the email, understated the SEER rate by a full percent.

Finally, let’s look at Canada which Joe makes out to be a pretty damn miserable place for people hoping to survive their cancer diagnosis for more than five years. Only 4 in 10 people will live five years after they’ve been diagnosed with cancer according to Joe and the imaginary International Health Organization of the UN. The Canadian Cancer Society would beg to differ. According to them (source: http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/Abo...spx?sc_lang=en) “62% of people are expected to survive for 5 years after their cancer diagnosis”.

So let’s compare our unverified sources to the verified sources:

Country 5 year survival (without sources) 5 year survival (with sources provided)
United States of America 65% 66%
United Kingdom 46% 58%
Canada 42% 62%

On average, our un-sourced claims were off by only about 11% from official statistics. Clearly that’s an acceptable margin of error for people who try to form a political opinion. Joseph Goebbels would approve.

Lastly, before moving on to the next point let’s take a look at this “5 year survival” rate and examine what it really tells us and what it’s limitations are. Generally, 5 year survival statistics are more useful as a tool to determine the standard of care for aggressive diseases that have a shorter life expectancy following diagnosis (lung cancer for example) than diseases with a longer life expectancy following diagnosis (colon cancer).

So, the above statistics, in order to paint a fair picture, really should be broken down into sub-types of cancer since if lung cancer rates in the UK for some reason are disproportionately higher than in Canada and the USA that might well account for the difference in 5 year survival rates.

#2
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Now, let’s move onto the next claim. The numbers above would like the reader to believe that it is far better to be a diabetes patient in the USA than in Canada or England. Sadly, it is impossible to verify the claims regarding the percentages of patients receiving treatment within 6 months as these statistics are nowhere to be found.

However, accepting these numbers at face value, the question the reader should ask is why we ought to care if the patient receives treatment within such a timeframe. Diabetes is not an aggressive disease like malaria so we are left to wonder why a six month treatment window is of such relevance.

Looking for some authorities on the subject, the Diabetes Quality Improvement Project of the International Diabetes Federation, when discussing factors on the quality of care for diabetics, does not reference any such time frames being of vital importance. In fact, they suggest measuring standards of care for diabetics as follows:

- Process of Care;
o Annual HbA1c testing
o Annual LDL cholesterol testing
o Annual screening for nephropathy
o Annual eye examination
- Proximal outcomes:
o HbA1c control
o LDL cholesterol control
- Distal outcomes:
o Lower-extremity amputation rates
o Kidney disease in persons with diabetes
o Cardiovascular mortality in people with diabetes.

(Source: http://www.diabetesatlas.org/content...l-quality-care)

Notice how in that list there is not one mention to treatment being received within 6 months. So how vital of a statistic can a six month treatment time-frame really be if the IDF doesn’t consider it worth including in their list of Healthcare quality indicators for diabetes?

Further, the reader is also left to wonder what time-frame the diabetics in the UK and Canada will receive their treatments in? Is it 9 months or 2 years? If the former were the case then that would hardly be something worth a raised eyebrow over. If the latter were the case that could be disastrous. Lastly, we are also not told what the rate of diagnosis is. Are only 10% of diabetics diagnosed in a timely manner in the USA compared to Canada and England? Then these statistics make the USA look much better than it actually is while if the rate of diagnosis is equivalent a different picture emerges.

So rather than oracle about further, let’s compare a statistic for which verifiable data is available to measure the quality of care for diabetics in these countries. Let’s look at mortality rates by country for diabetics. Because what better measure to determine quality of care than to see if the care can keep patients from dying!

First, let’s get some hard numbers how many people die each year from diabetes in the countries we’re looking at. In Canada that’s around 31,765 based on 2006 estimates, in the US 71,382 based on 2007 estimates and in the UK the number is around 5,583 based on 2008 estimates (Sources: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm, http://www.nchod.nhs.uk/NCHOD%5Ccompendium.nsf/($All)/01AB83F6E3EFA976802576D000355B78/$File/27C_061NO_08_V1_D.xls?OpenElement, http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccdpc-cpc..._DM_RR_Age.csv).

Next, let’s get an idea of how many diabetics there are in each of these countries. Based on 2000 data and 2030 projections we can get the following numbers:

- USA: 20,644,333
- UK: 2,005,800
- Canada: 2,313,400

(Source: http://www.who.int/diabetes/facts/wo.../en/index.html extrapolated based on 2000-2030 projections)

These numbers together with the countries respective populations give us:
- a mortality rate of 1.37% for diabetics in Canada and a diabetes rate of 5.87% among Canadians;
- a mortality rate of 0.28% for diabetics in the UK and a diabetes rate of 2.84% among the Brits, Scotts and Welsh;
- a mortality rate of 0.35% for diabetics in the USA and a diabetes rate of 5.71% among Americans.

This provides quite a strong contrast to the numbers above which would have us believe that being a diabetic in the UK is tantamount to a death sentence on account of treatment not being available in a timely manner.
As a kicker, let’s also take a look at amputation rates among diabetics for these three countries, because short of dying that sounds like the next best thing to want to prevent as a diabetic. For this issue we find:

- Canada 0.51% amputation rate per year for diabetics.
- USA 0.41% amputation rate per year for diabetics.
- United Kingdom 0.26% amputation rate per year for diabetics.

(Sources: http://www.dagc.org/diastatsus.asp, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8427937.stm , http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...16430/abstract)

So let’s recapitulate. The UK is about as good as the US as preventing diabetics from dying and better than the US at preventing diabetics from having their limbs chopped off in spite of the egregious delay in getting diabetics their treatment. Canada still sucks, but not as badly as we would’ve otherwise been led to believe.

#3
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Again the six month figure comes up. What’s the deal with this number? Can we list some relevant statistics instead? How about the good old costs associated with hip replacements maybe? If I had to have a hip replacement it would matter a lot more to me if the surgery will see me in debt for the rest of my life or not. In the US cost is around $41,597 for the procedure. By contrast in the UK it’s done for $11,127 - $14,307 and in Canada for as little as $11,600. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement, http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/hospi...p-replacement/, http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/775660.html)

How we are supposed to verify that patients receive an elective surgery within 6 months of needing it I am not sure. My uncle needs a hip replacement badly for 10 years now but he hasn’t elected to go in for the procedure so is he counted and dragging down the average?

Next, let’s take a look at the number of actual replacement surgeries these countries engage in on a year to year basis. Looking at this data we get:

- Canada: 23,000 surgeries per year or one for every 1,487 people per year.
- UK: 43,500 surgeries per year or one for every 1,426 people per year.
- USA: 120,000 surgeries per year or one for every 2,583 people per year.

Sources: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/320591.stm, http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hip_...ment/stats.htm, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...lacements.html)

What the above implies is that per capita the US rate of hip replacement surgeries is actually much lower, possibly due to the fact that many people who need it simply can’t afford it on account of the cost being 3-4 times what they are in Canada or the UK. Now if we assume that the rate of osteoarthritis per capita is equivalent for these three countries then we’d be left to conclude that hip replacement surgery is actually less readily available to patients who need it in the USA than in Canada or the UK. So let’s look for the data:
- USA: “An estimated 27 million adults had osteoarthritis in 2005.” (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_st...ated_stats.htm)
- UK: It is estimated that osteoarthritis causes joint pain in 8.5 million people in the UK. (Source: http://www.cks.nhs.uk/osteoarthritis...ion/prevalence)
- Canada: It (osteoarthritis)affects 10% of Canada’s population.(Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-619-...053549-eng.htm) – 3,419,800 extrapolated patient population

So using these numbers we can now determine the number of hip replacement surgeries per osteoarthritis patient. Of course it needs to be noted at this point that osteoarthritis can also necessitate knee joint replacement surgery, but for the purpose of this review we will focus only on hip replacement.

- USA: 120,000 / 27,000,000 = 0.44 surgeries / patient per year
- UK: 43,500 / 8,500,000 = 0.51 surgeries / patient per year
- Canada: 23,000 / 0.67 surgeries / patient per year

This suggests that patients in Canada and the UK are actually more likely to get a hip replacement in a given year that patients in the US, which is quite contradictory to the suggestion that 90% of US hip replacement requiring patients receive one within 6 months.

#4
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%


Like pretty much every other statistic in this list of statistics the above numbers are impossible to verify as the unbiased reader likely suspects already. Where is this data being tracked? Is there a national registry of queue times to see a specialist in these countries? No. Was there a survey done to see how long it takes people to get seen? No. In other words, these numbers seem made up. By contrast, the below numbers are not made up and reference some hard verifiable data – the number of physicians per capita (source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...r-1-000-people referencing the World Bank’s World Development indicator database):

- United States: 2.3 physicians per 1,000 people.
- United Kingdom: 2.2 per 1,000 people.
- Canada: 2.1 per 1,000 people.

Please note that there is only a marginal difference in the per capita number of physicians comparing these three countries (Germany & France, two other bastions of “socialized medicine” by contrast have around 3.4 physicians per 1,000 people). So, we should ask: “How it is that the number of physicians per 1,000 people is almost equivalent amongst these three countries and yet supposedly specialists are “harder” to come by in Canada and England?”

Also, do we as patients really care if we see a specialist right away if our regular physician can see us at once? Let’s assume for a moment that in the U.S. we have a hypothetical 2 month waiting list to see a physician but only 3 week waiting list to see a specialist while in the UK and Canada a physician can be seen in 2 weeks and a specialist in 6 weeks. Then the US patient would be in front of a specialist after 11 weeks and the British / Canadian patient would be in front a specialist after 8 weeks.

The bottom line – don’t let misleading statistics fool you!

#5
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18


MRI scanners are great. But the data given above is just flat out wrong. Based on OECD data (Source:http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoa...uestedData.xls) the number of machines per million people actually breaks down as follows:
- USA: 25.9
- UK: 5.6
- Canada: 6.7

The above numbers are based on 2007 data but it is unlikely that in the last 3 years either the UK or Canada purchased enough machines to bridge the gap. What is really sad about this particular issue is that whoever falsified these statistics in this email could not even be bothered to get accurate statistics to support his claims regarding the notion of supremacy of the US medical system.

#6
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%


Where is this survey? What’s the sample size that was used? And could it be that the discrepancy exists maybe because seniors in the UK and Canada have more regular check-ups or access to a better diagnostic medicine infrastructure alerting them to problems sooner? I’m not sure what exactly this is supposed to tell us. Using self-identification in lieu of actual hard facts seems like a bad idea to determine quality of a nation’s health care system.
So in keeping with the pattern of this rebuttal let’s get some actual facts in here about the health of seniors for these three countries. Life expectancy for people 65+ seems like a great way to measure that and the good old OECD was kind enough to provide this data for the three referenced countries.

- USA: Males; 17.1 years / Females: 19.8 years
- UK: Males; 17.6 years / Females: 20.2 years
- Canada: Males; 18.1 years / Females: 21.3 years

In other words, while seniors in the USA may self-identify as in “excellent health” the actual OECD data (Source:http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoa...uestedData.xls) suggests that citizens 65+ in the UK and Canada are in fact in better health as measured by their life expectancy.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10 August 2010, 01:25 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon101

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeReasonable View Post
I can't believe so many people are avoiding the original post and why it is here.
Not true. Most of us either haven't seen it or have done other things since it was posted in March.

Quote:
You want socialized medicine? Go live in a country like Canada and try it out for a while to see how you like it. You will pay taxes for healthcare and then die waiting for treatment!


That's a great parody of a right-wing talk show host you're doing there. It's inflammatory and completely inaccurate!

Quote:
That's why Canadians come here so often.
Me, I go to the U.S. when I wish to visit New York or Vegas. Any trips to the emergency room due to alcohol poisoning are purely coincidental.

Quote:
Government steps in and quality drops every time.
Cite, please.

Quote:
Peoples priorities are messed up these days. If you have a cell phone or an i-pod or a computer, then you can put money aside for doctors expenses too!
Aside from the iPod, those are things that are almost necessities if one wishes to get ahead in today's world. Why should one be forced to choose between those and health care?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10 August 2010, 01:56 PM
Keket's Avatar
Keket Keket is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Charlottetown, PE
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
Aside from the iPod, those are things that are almost necessities if one wishes to get ahead in today's world. Why should one be forced to choose between those and health care?
Not to mention that the cost of a computer or cell phone will buy you relatively little in the way of health care. My cellphone costs me approximately $60 a month. What exactly can I get at the hospital for that?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10 August 2010, 01:58 PM
kitap's Avatar
kitap kitap is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 8,682
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keket View Post
Not to mention that the cost of a computer or cell phone will buy you relatively little in the way of health care. My cellphone costs me approximately $60 a month. What exactly can I get at the hospital for that?
A bandaid?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kidnapping statistics snopes Crime 21 29 August 2009 04:14 PM
Lewis Black humor on The Daily Show snoozn Sightings 1 22 July 2009 08:16 PM
Naples Daily News page view report snopes Snopes Spotting 0 27 June 2009 04:03 PM
Churchill's advisor/daily prayer? Mrs. Matthews History 6 30 July 2007 03:45 PM
Bad business is good business snopes Business 3 01 May 2007 01:22 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.