The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Real Clear Politics: USA vs. Canada vs Britain Health Care Statistics – UPDATE: WHO Report Refuted.

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

Even NewerBritish Govt Hospital Causes “Unimaginable Suffering”: Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets… yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one’s to blame.

NEW – British National Health Service late cancer diagnosis kills 10,000 a year LINK.

Real Clear Politics:

By Deroy Murdock

Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: “Maybe I should pick up smoking.”

The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.

Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:

* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.

* The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”

* “Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.”

Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.

* Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.

* “In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.”

* Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks – nearly nine months – to visit an orthopedic surgeon.

* Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, “This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”

Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America’s system. This is false. The public option – for which Democrats lust – would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?

A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”

Barack Obama seconds that emotion.

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That’s what I’d like to see.”

And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn’t government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn’t Americans have universal access to fine dining?

All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

UPDATE: Refuting WHO report nonsense.

This post has gone viral on the internet and is posted on thousands of message board around the world and the most common response I have seen are some profoundly ignorant postings from leftists screaming that the WHO Report ranks the United States number 37 in care world wide, therefore we must suck. If said leftists had taken the time to actually read the report they would see that the WHO ranks the United States number one in patient responsiveness and care, but putting the United States as number one offends the WHO’s socialist sensibilities, so they had to find a way to lower America’s ranking. They were at least nice enough in the report to admit what they were doing and how they did it.

The WHO figures into the ranking weather or not the country in question has socialized health care, that means that if health care dollars come from the private sector, charities or the consumer the WHO lowers the ranking. WHO also skews the mortality rates by including people who die from crime and more importantly WAR.

When you look at the breakdown the United States according to WHO  is number ONE in patient responsiveness and care.

The WHO divides the report into sections – Here is the section on patient responsiveness and level of care – the United States is ranked number one

The WHO ranks the United States overall as 37 because we don’t have socialized health care; meaning that doesn’t meet socialists standard of “fairness”. – look here and do a search for the words “fairness in contributions” to see for yourself.

This means that the ranking of 37 has little to do with the quality of care people recieve and it has everything to do with ideology and politics.

UPDATE II – 12- 15- 09 An article coming to the same conclusion that we did above about the WHO report LINK.

17 Responses to “Real Clear Politics: USA vs. Canada vs Britain Health Care Statistics – UPDATE: WHO Report Refuted.”

  1. colette said

    Where did you get these phoney statistics? You site no reputable nonpartisan source for them. Instead you use ad hoc comments by dubious sources like Dr. David Gratzer, a conservative physician who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a right wing think tank, who has been a commentator on such “fair and balanced” media outlets as Fox News.

    Anyone who wants to see how the U.S. ranks against Britain and other European countries, vis a vis the health of our people, check out the World Health Organization statistics which are based on reputable studies.

    Guess what? We’re NOT ranked as healthy as Britain and elsewhere, by many measures.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    The WHO figures into the ranking weather or not the country in question has socialized health care. It also figures into the mortality rates people who die from crime and more importantly WAR.

    When you look at the breakdown the United States according to YOUR source is number 1 in patient responsiveness.

    The WHO also divides the report into sections – Here is the section on patient responsiveness and level of care – the United States is ranked number 1

    The WHO ranks the United States overall as 37 because we don’t have socialized health care so that doesn’t meet socialists standard of “fairness”. – look here and do a search for the words “fairness in contributions” to see for yourself.

    As far as Fox News, Fox has the closest to 50/50 in leftist vs conservative talking heads and when it comes to politics is the closest to 50/50 positive/negative stories about political candidates in both parties. This is according to the Pew Research Center and others whose studies have shown that Fox is indeed the most fair and balanced. Fox just does not denigrate the conservative point of view as the others do, which is why Fox beats them all in ratings COMBINED.

    By the way, the Manhattan institute is credible. You cant just impune the messenger and call that refutation, you have to make a real argument with facts I can check for my self to verify. By the way, most of those statistics come from the British and Canadian governments themselves.

    Hate is not real refutation, facts I can verify are. – Editor]

  2. Ken said

    You have got to be kidding Fox is the most fair and balanced.
    I is right wing talk radio on TV.

    CNN is to only true non-partisian cable network. Major networks just report the new. Two weeks ago there were 60 guests against health care reform and on 6 for it. How is that fair and balanced. Fox is a joke.

    [All of your hate aside, the studies proven this beyond doubt. ALL of the other networks demonize and marginalize the right, the traditional, and the libertarian, Fox is the only network that treats them fair, so to someone as propagandized as you I can see how you would think that Fox is “right wing”.

    Please remember that Hillary Clinton’s communications Director Howard Wolfson has stated on multiple occasions that Fox News was the only network that treated Hillary fairly. LINK –

    Here is just one study I was referring to. This one is from the Pew Research Center.

    – Editor]

  3. iusbvision said

    I have seen in message boards some arguments in reference to this piece that need addressed.

    “You spend twice as much on health care as Canada/England”

    There are four reasons for this.

    1. Our system has a primary focus on saving lives and improving their quality, whereas some other systems focus is on saving money and preserving the “system”.

    2. Americans are wealthier and we just have more money to spend on it. It is important not to underestimate this reason. As always the more money you have the more you spend.

    3. We have lots of injured military veterans who need care, more than most other countries.

    4. The United States has an aging baby boom problem that is worse than most other countries, so it is understandable that the expense of end of life care is higher for us.

    Another argument I have seen is the following :”The WHO report you linked shows that the avg health of the avg American is less than that of some other countries.” This is true but it has nothing to do with health care and has everything to do with a declining culture that eats too much McDonalds and smokes too much.

  4. Fat Bastard said

    Canda is ranked 30th for health care and he US is ranked 37th.

    Here are the real facts on breast cancer.

    [Hey there Ace, read comment number one, this has already been debunked. By the way, it is spelled Canada. – Editor]

  5. Argus said

    Hey Mr. Murdock, I hope I can leave my two cents without being called names like “dummy” by you.

    I would like to clarify regarding the body of your text: “The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada.”

    This is not entirely true. In Britain the state guides Health Care, but not in Canada. In Canada each province handles health care individually. The provinces determine how much money to allocate towards health care. The actual policy decisions rest mostly with two bodies: Hospitals and District Health Authorities. So while your citation of a legal case involving Quebec could be a valid criticism of Quebec’s health care, it may not be valid for other provinces.
    Now this is where it becomes surprising. Canadian hospitals are actually privately run (not privately owned,) They have their own board of directors, and their own CEOs. Therefore, unlike in the UK where a physician is a government employee (publically owned, publically run by the NHS), in Canada a physician is a private employee. Canadian health clinics are often (usually, even) entirely private (owned and operated), but the money comes from a government source.
    The main “nationwide” law is the Canada Health Act, which mandates a single-payer system.

    I have a question for you: If the U.S. system is superior to the British and Canadian systems, it begs the question, why does Canada have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate? Is the public health system in the U.S. (public health referring to the discipline, not “public healthcare”) the real problem? These two criteria are often used as gold standards for comparing systems (as a way to provide less biased results), although this is contentious, and combines public health issues with clinical health issues.

    I’m curious to see what your feelings are on the French Healthcare system. France is currently rated as the having the best healthcare system by the OECD.

    Finally, what do you think about economist Paul Krugman’s assertion that

    I hope that you don’t think that anything in this letter is “hate”, I do disagree with the opinion you’ve presented, but I still find what you say interesting. I’d like to hear more about your views.

    [I only refer to someone as a dummy if the argument they present was so silly, or already well addressed if they had just bothered to actually read before they post. The man below earned his title :-)

    As far as Canada, they are improving their system with private incentives and such more and more since the Canadian Supreme Court made that decision on the government monopoly in health care. But still the government statistics and the stats from the Frasier Institute do not paint a very pretty picture. With that said , things are getting better in Canada as governments grip on the system is loosened over time.

    The British NHS is a disaster and even most British admit that freely. Ironically it is the British NHS that the far left in the USA would like to emulate. As far as France, remember a few years back how tens of thousands of elderly died because of a heatwave and they did not have the medical facilities to deal with the problem? If that is how someone defines the best than I will pass and gladly take ours.

    As far as mortality rates, I addressed those arguments in the comments above, but in short they include drug gangs shooting each other and people we lose fighting in wars, read above for more details.

    As far as “hate” know it when I see it and your post was fine. It is 2 am and I am wiped out. Thanks for stopping by. – Editor]

  6. James Allison said

    Nice piece. I really like how you address comments, and back your claims up with facts.

    Keep up the good work!

    [Thanks James, but as you can see the left rarely accepts delivery of verifiable facts, but maybe that is the point of trying to talk with them. The far left lives in a world of self deception and lies, much like the elite media culture.

    For some reason I am reminded of the Sarah Palin interview on ABC, where she gave the same answers to NATO questions that Obama and Edwards gave, the Huffington Post praised them and trashed her as a dangerous war monger. – Editor]

  7. MaskedmanClause said

    It’s funny how more studies have shoed that if you get your news from Fox, you’ll be among those of the least informed in the US, if not, the entire world. It also showed that viewers of Fox News tends to be stupider than viewers of other networks (although they weren’t that blatent about it). This is due to their editing, exaggerating and even lying of stories.
    I’m conservative too, and even I see the toxic that is Fox News (don’t get me wrong, I pretty much hate all other networks for being too leftist, but I usually watch CNN more because they at least TRY to be fair and balanced).

    And I hate to tell you this, but the WHO put your country as 37th behind all these other “socialized” countries. You can gnash your teeth at it all you want, it still doesn’t change that fact. You’re only angry (along with the rest of the replicons and some democrips) that your country isn’t as good at this as other countries, even though you’ve been bragging for decades at how you have the best, even though it’s proven you don’t LOL.

    Your system is a failure, get over it.


    The only thing that is a failure is the fact that you did not read the responses right here on this very page that totally refuted what you say.

    That same WHO report that ranked us “37” ranked the United States number 1 in patent level of care and response of care. The links for you to see this for yourself are on this very page you you didnt even bother to read it. The WHO ranked us 37 because the report lowers the score if any of the dollars come from the patient or from the private sector and the WHO report makes that very clear.

    By the way, we have published on this very site poll after poll from the Pew Research Center that shows that Fox News viewers are among the most informed on the top issues. The most informed group of people were Rush Limbaugh listeners, Bill O’Reilly listeners were also near the top and were also ahead of NPR. Again the information is as easy to find as 1, 2, 3 as Google will find it and we have the information published on this site.

    You are not anything close to conservative as I know who you are. You are a 22 year old college student from Carleton University in Canada. You are also really into some nintendo games. I do not appreciate it when people misrepresent themselves on my site.

    I will spare you the humiliation of publishing your name as you have quite made the fool of yourself here. Editor]

  8. SteveV said

    I just happened across your site, and I have to tell you that I think you are doing a great thing.

    As John Adams so eloquently put it, “Facts are stubborn things.” I applaud your committment to factual, verifiable information and honest analysis thereof, vs. the typical delusions and fantasies peddled by the liberal left as undeniable truths. It would REALLY be nice if a single-payer, government-guided, universal healthcare system actually provided better, more affordable healthcare for the entire population, but thus far there is no verifiable proof that that is the case; if anything the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

    In any case, thanks for being a sane voice.

    [Thanks so much for your kind words.

    You are right it would be nice if we could have that utopia, but the simple truth is that bureaucracies, especially government ones, are masters at dodging personal responsibility and accountability. Just now there is a new horror story from a government hospital in Britain I will be writing about shortly. Capitalism and the market provide the incentives for people to perform, government monopolies and bureaucracies have a singular purpose, self preservation at the expense of all else.

    Capitalism is not an end unto itself either. Societies need to have personal responsibility and restraint and these things require a moral code which most progressives reject. – Editor]

  9. […] Some other very good comparison statistics can be found at here. […]

  10. josh said

    Everything aside, the problem with U.S. health care is that it leaves people out.
    Of course, medical assistance will not be denied in an emergency, but if you can not afford the bill, then what? It would be nice to see a somewhat more compassionate government. The false dichotomy seems to be that it can only be a privatized, or socialized system. In both systems, the fear of the industry is giving people a choice. Unfortunately, health insurance has become a matter of profitability, treating people as products rather than human. I suppose though, that in reality, nothing is free. If the millions spent on advertising and propaganda campaigns were cut down to some degree, there would be a significant drop in insurance premiums, as the premiums are the companies profits.

    [If you want to see a system that treats people like products, try any place with socialized medicine. Obviously you have never been to England or been to a VA hospital. The great thing about our system is that if you are not happy with your care you can go elsewhere. They have to keep you happy to get your business. I am the parent of a special needs child, I have fired several doctors for displaying inadequate skills and/or critical thinking ability. Between my insurance and the family we have spent likely in excess of a million dollars my child’s care. If I was treated like a product I would fire those health care providers on the spot and get new ones as there are plenty of choices. In a private system if you are denied care and something worse happens you can sue, in a government system you cannot sue the government due to sovereign immunity.

    It is obvious that you are a young man making assumptions, the truth is Josh that many of the assumptions you are making are exactly the opposite in reality. As you get older you will realize this. – Editor]

  11. […] Some other very good comparison statistics can be found at here. […]

  12. iusbvision said

    Chicks on the Right has covered the World Health Organization fraudulent study story. I am glad that the word is getting out.

    Commentary Magazine has caught up with is as well. This is very encouraging :)

    Click to access The%20Worst%20Study%20EVER%20by%20Scott%20W.%20Atlas.pdf

  13. Wiccanwolf said

    If one wants to see the system change drastically, take those with more money than brains and make them wait at the back of the line because they with their greed have brought this upon themselves. Once they are told, you will have to wait 2 months or better for a routine operation, or are told they are too old to be saved, their tune will change drastically.

  14. Bill Gonseaux said

    Words can be powerful tools to open the minds and hearts of men. Words can move men to do great deeds. Fifty six men signed a document whose words were so powerful and expressed such great principles that they were willing to risk their lives and their fortunes. These men took upon themselves the mantel of liberty even in the face of death. Part of what these men spoke to the world is:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    These are foundational words that convey liberty of self, liberty of purpose, liberty of life, and liberty to pursue. There is a tyranny that is building in America today. It is a tyranny called security. It is a tyranny called entitlement. It is a tyranny called comfort. Each of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence forsook their security, sought no entitlement, and gave up their comforts because of a single cause – Liberty.
    The United States once had a “government of the people, by the people and for the people”.

    Today, there is very little “of” or “by” or “for” but rather, it has become a land of “to”. The systems and institutions (that have grown dramatically since those immortal words of Abraham Lincoln) feel compelled to control and define what people are to do. I was once told that an employer tells you where you will live, what you will eat, and what kind of car you will drive. How can your employer control so much of your life, simply by what you are paid. They also tell you when to work and where. When you took the job, you gave up your ability to determine these things for yourself. You may never have thought about this, but it is nonetheless true. Sadly, we have done the same thing with health care. We have given the most precious gift that we will ever be given and turned it blindly over to a totally disinterested third party – the established medical complex.
    How has the country gone from fighting for a concept called liberty to embracing tyranny? Make no mistake; the established medical complex is tyranny. It is their expressed desire to dictate to you, without your input, your health care. Before you complain that they are not dictating, ask yourself a few questions. How much time does my doctor take with me, does he explain everything fully, and does he include me in the decisions about my health? Sadly, the medical complex determines how long a doctor can spend with a patient and how much to include the patient in the process. Clearly, you do not know as much about the body as the doctor, but just as clearly he probably does not know very much about you. He knows your medical history because you filled out a form. But does he KNOW you. Each person is radically unique and therefore each person’s treatment should be radically unique. How can it be, though, if the doctor does not know you?

    If you go to the hospital, they will perform an intake on you. You enter their “system”, which in truth, is dictated by a number of other systems called government regulations, insurance procedures, standard of care, compliance, legal safeguards, etc. Once you have entered the system, you are now treated as a part of that system. They put a band around your wrist so they can identify you. The band has a bar code so they can identify you. They will ask you for your birth date so they can identify you. There is a computer application that can identify you. Why do they need to go to such lengths to identify you? Because they don’t KNOW you. When I was young, the doctor who delivered me was the same doctor I went to when I was 21. He KNEW me. Why does the established medical complex try so hard to identify you? Because they don’t always do it so well. Sometimes a medication is given that should not have been given because the person was misidentified. Patients have had the wrong appendage removed because they were not identified correctly. Sometimes a person will be given a treatment intended for another person because the established medical complex could not properly identify the correct patient.

    You might reasonably ask, “how often does this happen?” Actually we don’t know. Studies have shown that more than 100,000 people die each year in hospitals who should not have died. How many were misidentified? Logic and reason would tell you that there is a failure to properly know the person that is being treated. This could mean that the chart was not read completely or correctly or it could mean that the identities of patients got mixed up. What it does clearly mean, though, is that the established medical complex failed. It screwed up. We as a people have willingly given up our identity in the hope that we would receive proper care. Often we do but sadly, often we don’t.

    Have you ever read the warnings for pharmaceutical drugs? If not, you should. After you read them, another reasonable question might be, “who would take these drugs and risk the listed side effects?” Well, people do. Are most drugs safe? The answer to a clear and logical mind is no. Almost all of them have negative side effects. Then why do people take them so easily. I think the answer is trust. The established medical complex has built a wondrous aura of infallibility and a belief in the populous that the system actually cares for the individual.

    I do not believe there is a so-called right to health care. To believe this reduces the freedom and liberty we have over our bodies. Whenever something is declared a right, it means that there is an exchange of something to obtain that right. In welfare, it is an exchange of dignity and determination for money. In health care, it is an exchange of our freedom to make health decisions, the very control of our body, for a nebulous unspoken promise of enhanced life. And to whom do we give this freedom – a disinterested third party called the established medical complex.

    Declaration of Health Independence:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with Certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Wellness. That to secure these rights, Establishments/Systems are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the patient, – That whenever any Form of Establishment/System becomes destructive of the individual’s right to control their own body, it is the Right of the Patients to alter or to abolish the Establishment/System, and to institute new Systems, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Wellness.

  15. […] Some other very good comparison statistics can be found at here. […]

  16. […] thoroughly check information before he shared it with others. I'm shocked I tell you….shocked! Real Clear Politics: USA vs. Canada vs Britain Health Care Statistics ? UPDATE: WHO Report Refuted. … __________________ Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not […]

  17. l. j. sax said

    Having done research supported by WHO I can tell you they are very political and lean sharply left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: