Daily Mail Horror Story: UK Health Care Left Me to Die

Buried in this article warning of the dangers of fake tanning, Why celebrities are to blame for women risking their lives in sunbed salons to look tanned, is a revealing nugget about UK's government-run socialized health care:

In November 2007, my consultant told me to go home and enjoy my last Christmas with my family - the cancer was aggressive and had spread so quickly that I had just four weeks to live.

Many tears were shed in our family after that announcement. But all I could think was that I had three beautiful children and I had to find a way to get treatment.

So I went on the internet and discovered that the life-extending cancer drug Avastin, which I'd been told would not be approved for my use in Britain due to the expense, was available in the U.S.

A few days later, my husband and I flew to the Mayo Hospital in Minnesota, which had agreed to treat me.

At the hospital I had more chemotherapy and was prescribed Avastin. We have had to pay thousands for the drug, but I've been in remission since earlier this year, so it's been worth every penny, especially as doctors here gave me a death sentence almost two years ago.

In a nutshell: The woman was refused live-saving cancer drugs in Britain because they were too expensive! They are available to patients in the US so she flew here and is alive 2 years after UK doctors told her she had weeks to live and there was nothing they could do!

Keep government health care away from the US!
.

Obama's Mom Jeans!

I found this pretty freaking hilarious!

Of course the HuffPo people think he looks "super cool!" or as the always hip Arlen Specter would say, "super-duper" cool. Losers!

P.S. Boos for Obama in St. Louis?! Looks like he's not as infallible as previously thought!

More Pro-Choice Violence

Pro-Life Group Wants Justice Department to Investigate Death Threats, Gets Refusal

Abortion Advocate Nearly Runs Over Pro-Life Planned Parenthood Protester

Arkansas Man Faces July Trial for Nearly Hitting Pro-Life Advocates With Car

Abortion Advocate Attacks Pro-Life Group's Office, Tries to Disable Security System

And let's not forget about the SEVENTH instance of Planned Parenthood breaking the law by not reporting the statutory rape of underage girls:

Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Staffer: We Bend the Rules on Sexual Abuse

Related posts:

Pro-"Choice" Violence

Socialized Health Care Horror Stories: Cancer, Part 2

Before examining how socialized health care affects other conditions, I wanted to follow up on last week's cancer focus with two more cancer horror story articles from the United Kingdom.

UK Telegraph: Patients with suspected cancer forced to wait so NHS targets can be hit

People arriving at Accident and Emergency departments [Emergency Rooms in the United States] with symptoms which could indicate the aggressive spread of the disease are waiting weeks for diagnosis and treatment while “routine” cases are prioritised.

Hospital managers told researchers that treating desperately sick patients more quickly would “reflect badly” on their performance against Government cancer targets which only cover those referred to specialists by GPs.
...
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients Association, said the report provided “breathtaking” evidence of a confidence trick being played on the public, repeatedly told that waiting times for patients with suspected cancer are falling, while desperate cases were forced to the back of the queue.

She said: “This confirms our very worst fears, and exposes the scandal of what pernicious targets are doing to patients. We have seen other targets being used in ways that damage patient care, but of everything we have seen, this really is the cruellest of the cruel”.

Because of the pressure to cut down on the wait times inherent in universal health care, targets have been put in place to make sure hospitals meet certain time requirements. In response, hospitals put their focus on the cases that are counted towards the targets (i.e. cancer patients referred by GPs) and put the cases that don't count towards targets (emergency cancer patients) on the back burner. When the government runs health care, meeting warped government standards takes priority over treating the sickest.

UK Daily Mail: Britain's cancer shame as 15,000 elderly patients could be saved every year

UP to 15,000 Britons aged over 75 are dying needlessly from cancer each year, claim researchers.

Their lives could be prolonged if UK cancer survival rates matched the best in Europe and the US, it is claimed.

A new study is the latest to expose the gap between survival rates in Britain and other developed countries despite huge increases in NHS funding.

Researchers say many older sufferers have more invasive cancers, partly caused by later diagnosis of the disease either through delays in the NHS or by patients themselves.

Another factor is poorer treatment of patients here, compared with other countries which often have a wider range of drugs to use.

…

Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley said 'This report exposes the huge problems with Labour’s bureaucratic, tick-box culture. Their targets for cancer survival for the NHS only focus on the under 75s, so it’s not surprising older people are suffering.

15,000 senior citizens die every year because of the socialized health care system. Britain is considerably smaller than the United States, so the numbers would be far higher here if we were to follow the UK. The problems that lead to these preventable deaths are also hallmarks of universal health care: more delays, poorer treatment, less access to drugs, and more inhuman bureaucracy. Again, government targets have unintended and harmful consequences for patients.

Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.

Happy Independence Day 2009!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMERICA!!! And thank you to all the patriots, past, present & future who make our independence possible!

Obamercial Response

Check out Cato's response to the many inaccuracies of the #Obamercial last week:

AIP Socialized Health Care Horror Stories: Cancer

With Obamacare increasingly becoming the focus in Washington, it is important to highlight the horrors of government-run universal health care in other countries so it can be stopped here.

Here's are two recent stories on how government health care affects cancer treatment:

UK:

The cancer divide: Men are most at risk because the NHS prefers saving women, says cancer expert

It revealed that among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60 per cent more likely to develop the disease and 70 per cent more likely to die from it. ...

As a cancer specialist for the past 30 years, I found the study depressingly predictable. It has long been clear to me that we men are unfairly discriminated against by an NHS which has unfairly favoured female health matters ahead of the needs of male patients. ...

For the fact is that politicians, eager to court the female vote, have long presided over a huge disparity in funding and treatment of female cancer patients at the expense of their male counterparts. ...

The truth is that by treating the NHS as a political football to be kicked in whichever direction they judge will win them the most votes, politicians have added hugely to the disparity between male and female cancer survival rates. ...

I believe we need to look at financial incentives as a possible answer. Recently, private health insurers have started offering reduced premiums for subscribers who agree to join gyms, and even ‘no claims discounts’ for those who remain healthy. Why shouldn’t the NHS adopt a similar approach?...

From this example we can see that when the government controls health care, politicians will use it to get votes from favored constituencies - at the expense of the health of others. Notice also how the author approvingly cites the practices of private health care to encourage better health outcomes.

Canada:

OHIP cost cutting complicates cancer treatment

Interleukin-2 is a protein in the human body that stimulates the immune system and helps infection-fighting cells multiply and grow. It is used to treat certain types of cancers such as advanced melanoma and renal cancer. IL-2 was approved by Health Canada several years ago, but its use is not as widespread in Canada as it is in the United States.

OHIP covers pre-approved IL-2 treatments in the U.S. for Ontario residents who need it, but Hunt has been waiting to get the life-saving drug for two months....

He sought treatment in Detroit and had a consultation with an oncologist there but didn't get OHIP's approval to proceed because of a simple mistake in the paperwork, Meghan said.

Frustrated, the couple spent hours on the phone, calling doctors, the Ministry of Health and local politicians, hoping that someone could help them.

But while they were scrambling to secure Hunt's treatment in Detroit, there was a change in OHIP rules.

OHIP will now only cover Hunt's cancer treatment in Buffalo, N.Y., where the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the ministry's only "preferred provider" of IL-2 treatment for metastatic malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. The Ministry of Health has a number of funding agreements with out-of-country health care facilities, which are chosen based on specific criteria.

After much bureaucratic wrangling, Hunt will finally meet with specialists in Buffalo today and find out when he can begin treatment there. But he still doesn't understand why he and his family have to make the four-hour trip instead of simply crossing the border to get the same medical care in Detroit.

First of all, the fact that Canada is sending its patients to the U.S. for proper care should be enough of an indication of the failures of their system - where will Canadians go if the U.S. gets socialized health care? Second, this story demonstrates the red tape and government control of where people can seek treatment, which is based on cost, not necessarily on better care or patient comfort.

These are just two examples of many of how poorly run universal health care is for cancer patients. Next week, we'll take a look at other aspects of the system.

Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.

Top 100 Wasteful Stimulus Projects

Check out my blog post on the American Issues Project blog about Sen. Coburn's list of the Top 100 Wasteful Stimulus Projects!

.

Idiot Professor: REPUBLICANS should Apologize for Slavery?!

I was reading this WaPo article about the Senate voting to apologize for slavery - (I hope they only apologized on their own behalf, I have nothing to do with slavery, I have never owned a slave. My family came over in the last 100 years and was previously abused by the Turks, no apology forthcoming.)

Anyway, take a look at this RIDICULOUS quote from a college professor:

Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday's vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate's resolution "meaningless" since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.

"The Republican Party needed to do it," Swain said. "It would have shed that racist scab on the party."

Excuse me, lady, but it is actually quite fitting that the Democrat-controlled government made the apology - it was after all the REPUBLICAN party that freed the slaves! Remember that guy, Abe Lincoln? He was our first REPUBLICAN president.

Or perhaps she is thinking more of the Civil Rights area. Oh, but wait, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REPUBLICAN! REPUBLICANS voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act - higher as a percentage than the Democrats and it was powerful Democrats in Congress who opposed it. Later, it was REPUBLICAN President Richard Nixon who started affirmative action.

But enough with the history lesson for this ignorant professor. Apparently, she thinks only HER present perception of the Republican party matters. Never mind that the resolution was about SLAVERY, ended by REPUBLICANS in the 1860s.

What have Democrats actually done for the black community? Are Democratically-controlled cities thriving? Like Detroit? Don't forget Katrina happened under the leadership of a Democrat mayor, city council AND governor. Republican-controlled Mississippi fared much better. Are students improving? Democrats are also the ones blocking black families from choosing better schools for their children. Are families flourishing? To Democrats, the answer to the problem of single motherhood is more abortion facilities in poor inner cities.

What is this "racist scab" she speaks of and do we really believe that apologizing would end the issue? What is so racist about Republicans? It is black Republicans who receive some of the worst open racial insults by black and white Democrats alike. Just ask REPUBLICAN National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

I guess what makes us racist is that we don't think of minorities as different or special - people are people. Republicans strive for a color-blind society, not a bean-counting one that strives for the "right" combination of the "right" color faces. We believe people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats did, too? But, alas, I guess then both parties would be called racist.

Just Say No to Bailing Out Beach Houses

Looks like Congress is again cooking up a bill that would send over taxpayer money to cover the poor financial decisions of others.

It's officially called the "Homeowners' Defense Act" but Competitive Enterprise Institue (CEI) has dubbed it the "Beach House Bailout:

So how did we get here?

Higher premiums serve to discourage investment and development in disaster-prone areas, such as Florida with it's hurricane season, however the higher prices are not politically popular and may appear unfair when the seas are calm and the weather clear. That may cause the government to attempt to drive prices down artificially, which serves as a market signal for more investment and development on the high-risk lands.

In Florida, politicians created a state-run insurance company with artificially low property insurance premiums backed by an implicit guarantee which encouraged people to build, like the celebrities building elaborate mansions on beaches in hurricane paths. This distortion in the marketplace drove many private insurance companies out of the state, leaving the state of Florida as the largest insurance provider.

When natural disasters hit, like a hurricane, the damage costs are higher, and thus insurance claims greater, than they would have been if the original premium signals had been obeyed and the beach houses not been built. Instead of spreading the risk throughout the private insurance sector, taxpayers are left footing the bill for massive claim payouts.

To cover their behinds so their constituents don't hold them accountable on this self-inflicted mess, many politicians like those in Florida want to spread the risk throughout the rest of the country through the "Homeowners' Defense Act," i.e. pass the buck on and seek a federal bailout. Of course, this would merely recreate the Florida model on a massive scale: the federal government will provide a guarantee and national taxpayers will be on the hook for payouts.

This idea is attractive to other states and localities that face increased natural disaster risks, but is unfair to low-risk states and taxpayers who choose to live and build in stable, safe areas who will end up having to bailout their irresponsible and risky neighbors.

To join CEI in saying "No Beach House Bailouts," sign their citizens petition here.

Originally posted at the American Issues Project Blog