Rudy: If U.S. had universal health care, I might be dead; Update: Rudy’s numbers wrong?

posted at 1:07 pm on October 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Effective, but true? Rudy claims the survival rate for prostate cancer in the UK (by which I assume he means the five-year survival rate) is a dismal 44%. It looks to be about 70% as of 2001 from this UK cancer resource site, although that may combine patients who used NHS with patients who sought private care. According to the National Cancer Institute of Canada, as of 15 years ago, the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer was upwards of 90%. A robust prognosis — assuming you don’t mind queueing up and suffering for awhile, which many universal health care participants do. The question, per this National Post article about “medical tourism” up north, is whether suffering Canadians who don’t want to wait for government health care while they’re in pain are in worse shape than suffering Americans who can’t afford U.S. care in the first place:

Yasmeen Sayeed, chief executive officer of Surgical Tourism Canada, said her client list has steadily increased since she opened shop in July 2005.

But Ms. Sayeed acknowledged that medical tourism is far less of a big deal in Canada than it is in the U.S., where 500,000 Americans went overseas for treatment in 2005.

The reason for the difference is cost. Americans are used to paying for medical care, said Ms. Sayeed. Canadians aren’t because of their country’s universal publicly funded health care. Medical care overseas for Canadians means money out of their pocket, she added.

But for millions of Americans who are either uninsured or underinsured, purchasing medical care overseas can be cheaper than buying it at home.

NCPA, a conservative think tank, published some numbers a few weeks ago showing how the U.S. system compares favorably to Europe’s in treating cancer. Digest them now because if you think the partisan battle over Iraq casualty statistics is fierce, wait until this debate gets going.

Update: Embarrassing. You’re going to put out an ad on one of the two or three hottest domestic issues of the campaign and have your numbers be off by 30%? I fact-checked this stuff in five minutes of googling. The Democrats will have a field day with it.

[T]he data Giuliani cites comes from a single study published eight years ago by a not-for-profit group, and is contradicted by official data from the British government.

According to the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics, for men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1999 and 2003, the “five-year survival rate” — a common measurement in cancer statistics — was 74.4 percent.

There might be a reason that explains the eight-point spread that doesn’t depend on the payment system, either:

Don McCanne, a senior health policy fellow at Physicians for a National Health Program, conceded that the five-year survival rate for cancer diagnoses is higher in the United States than in many countries that have single-payer systems, though the disparity is not as great as Giuliani claims in his ad.

But he said that any such comparison is flawed, since it fails to take into account the additional investment in cancer education and screening in the United States. Much of the gap would be closed if other countries invested similar sums in catching cancer early.

If all Americans had access to preventive care, screenings, and treatment — through a single-payer system or another universal healthcare plan — the five-year survival rate would almost certainly be increased, since cancers would be caught sooner.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I dunno about Rudy, but I’m pretty sure that if we were under a Hillary!-care system, I would still be waiting to see a specialist. No thanks.

Further, if socialized medicine is so great, why do my Canadian relatives regularly come to the US and pay cash for medical care?

The answer should be plain for all to see.

Russ on October 29, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I think universal health care is a plot to control population and I might add “ A certain population”

I bet, if and when it passes the very next day they’ll have abortion clinics working with nazi concentration camp like efficiency but getting a tooth pulled will takes 12 months.

TheSitRep on October 29, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Speaking as someone who’s lost many family members to prostate cancer, he’s absolutely right. Prostate cancer has an incredibly poor survival rate unless caught really really early. And treated pretty aggressively.

So as mean as it sounds to say Rudy would be dead if he were under a universal health system. My family is all in Canada and trust me, he would be.

mjk on October 29, 2007 at 1:29 PM

If it’s accurate, it’s a very effective political point. Absolute moral authority.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

It looks to be about 70% as of 2001 from this UK cancer resource site, although that may combine patients who used NHS with patients who sought private care.

I’d also add. How many of the new treatments for cancer were developed in Europe or are they sponging off new treatments created here? I know most new medicines come from this country and the entire world benefits from them.

lorien1973 on October 29, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Rudy makes a great point, but I’m wondering about another issue that relates to government run healthcare. Simply put, when does the government decide that someone has become “untreatable” and cut them off from the system. We don’t hear the advocates of socialized medicine talking about this, or the other side asking the question. When does the euthanasia question get asked?

swami on October 29, 2007 at 1:37 PM

I think my second son would have probably been aborted under universal health care. I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer at 4 months pregnancy and all the drs wanted to abort the baby and operate on me. As it was, I had to fight for his life and mine… That included flying from LA to NY to gain a 2nd opinion…
My son is now 22, studying in Japan, and a full fledged member of the United States citizenry.
I thank God for private health care as it allowed me the choice to bring this child into the world.

Babs on October 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

The thing about Rudy is that if he says he will do something he will, while any Democrat won’t.

Hilary blamed her health care system flop on insurance companies the last time. Now she wants a mulligan.

Hening on October 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Well, I went to see my family practitioner in July because of a concern about my thyroid…I was in the endocrinologist’s office the next day for a biopsy, which came back positive. Surgery was arranged between summer school and the start of the regular school year (at my convenience), and all the radioactive stuff was done last week, after the incision had healed. I feel like carp, but my prognosis is good long term. Go, Kaiser.

Could I have pulled this off in Canada or the UK in 3 months? I don’t know, but I do know that the reason I have the health insurance I have is because I got a job that offered it, like any other financial decision a body should make when planning one’s life. It wasn’t an accident, it was a plan. It’s part of my salary package, and if I opted out of it I’d get paid more. I certainly do not expect the government to provide it for me. Given my sound mind and (mostly) sound body, I should be able to take care of such things myself, thanks.

I also pay into a trust at work that will continue to provide me, and any spouse I might someday acquire, basically the same health coverage I have now until I’m finally pushing up the daisies. Again, I pay into the trust that will pay for my health insurance after I retire. Same thing for the disability insurance that is making up the difference in income for me on the two occasions I have had to take off work due to illness in the last few years.

It’s not that hard, folks.

Is it?

Bob's Kid on October 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Medical tourism is actually catching on in the US as well. It isn’t done here because of the waiting line, but you can get the same procedures done for about 10% of the cost with airfare and accommodations included.

The COST of health care needs to be addressed. The problem is the lobbies don’t have any interest in addressing costs (prescription drugs, for profit insurance, ambulance chasing lawyers ready to sue for Fort Knox if a doctor makes an error, medical billing errors. . . etc).

We can cut the costs dramatically. There is enough money in the system. The problem is the waste. This remark is hyperbole. Rudy would have gotten the same treatment regardless. But there are major issues that can be addressed. The problem is that there is too much money in the status quo and not enough guaranteed money in changing.

ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Laura Ingraham reported that there was a theft of several thousands of dollars in bras from a Victoria Secret store.

saved on October 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Laura Ingraham reported that there was a theft of several thousands of dollars in bras from a Victoria Secret store.

saved on October 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Is Rudy’s prostate a suspect?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM

My first daughter was diagnosed as having an open spine, and the doctor recommended abortion, this was in 1987. This was our first child and we decided to seek another doctor’s advice.

Fortunately for us and our soon to be 20 year old daughter, we had a Amniocentesis done, and the results said she was fine.

Far too often the first recommended course of action is to abort, when just as often it can be caused by sloppy transfer of information, as was our case. My wife is Japanese, and started her pre-natal care with a Japanese doctor.

When we arrived in America the doctors incorrectly placed her conception date a month later then it actually was, which led to confusing chemistry.

I agree with other posters, we will get less options under any form of socialized health care, and my daughter probably wouldn’t have survived.

Rode Werk on October 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM

First they have to shut up conservatives, so they’re working on the fairness doctrine for that, then all they need to do is control our health care, and they can kill us all off by letting us die. Then a couple of generations from now, they can have the nirvana they dream about without those pesky annoyances like free speech, the right to pursue life/liberty/happiness, all that stuff they hate so much.

JustTruth101 on October 29, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Further, if socialized medicine is so great, why do my Canadian relatives regularly come to the US and pay cash for medical care?

Russ on October 29, 2007 at 1:12 PM

As Allah’s post states, and as ThackerAgency also notes, Americans go abroad for medical treatment as well — seemingly more than Canadians do.

tneloms on October 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Americans who can’t afford U.S. care in the first place

This is getting as worn out as the “jobs Americans won’t do” nonsense. There is no fundamental right to any service, of any kind, ever. Economic decisions have consequences, and sometimes they’re unpleasant.

We need more free market in the healthcare industry, not less. I hate insurance companies and dealing with them. I’m sure doctors hate them even more. I’m even more sure that the government would screw things up exponentially.

We simply cannot afford to disconnect the financial aspect of choosing what and which medications and medical proceedures we will buy. That means taking a pass on expensive options or searching for alternatives if you’re poor. One more reason to stay in school, kids.

TexasDan on October 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Further, if socialized medicine is so great, why do my Canadian relatives regularly come to the US and pay cash for medical care?

My arguement has always been – if socialized medicine is so great, why do the best and brightest doctors from all over the world come to America to practice? Answer: to make money and not be a government employee. Usually shuts down the arguement, unless they’re an ultra-moonbat wealth re-distribution commie.

crazy_legs on October 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM

I was just diagnosed with symptomatic pericardial cyst on my heart. I KNOW I’d be up the creek with a universal health care system. I’m 57, not worth the public funds that would be spent.

MNDavenotPC on October 29, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I saw a link at Fark to a British article cautioning Americans against thinking an NHS-type system is a good solution. I’m interested in Fark because, though they lean strongly left, they’re actually not always nutcases about it. They freely and honestly mock liberals who deserve it, too.

Anyway, I wanted to know what the Fark commenters thought about 70,000 British people fleeing to other countries to find timely and effective health care. But even the reasonable liberals among their commenters were quick to say it’s “only” 70,000 compared to millions of Americans who don’t have any health care at all. They really do think that inferior and slow and badly understaffed health care is better than what we have. The key is this: They think “universal health care” is fantastic, but ONLY if they still have the option of private health care for themselves. They were quite glib in their assurances that, if a person wants to wait for national health care to take care of them, they can always go pay for private health care. What happened to that famous liberal compassion for the poor?! They saw no problem with basically declaring that crappy NHS-type care is good enough for the poor people as long as they themselves can still get fast, good care if they can pay for it. Elitist turds. How is that any different from what we have now, except for the higher taxes and crappy doctors? It’s frustrating that otherwise reasonable and intelligent people can’t see that socialized medicine is a lose-lose proposal any way you look at it.

aero on October 29, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Bob’s Kid on October 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I agree with your statements with respect to people who above a certain threshold of wealth (which most — but not all — people are). But I think that there should be some safety net for the bottom rung of the economic ladder that can’t get a job that offers health insurance or pays enough to buy it on your own. I don’t think that poor people “deserve” big houses and nice cars, etc., but I do think they deserve health care, which I regard as something unique.

Granted, most universal health care systems are designed to cover much more than the very bottom who can’t possibly afford health care, but then I think we should be proposing much less intrusive and much more moderate forms of government-provided health insurance rather than nixing it entirely.

tneloms on October 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM

So, of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, (OK, of the 22.5 million possessing a prostate) how many do you suppose get screened for prostate cancer?

factoid on October 29, 2007 at 2:56 PM

So, of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, (OK, of the 22.5 million possessing a prostate) how many do you suppose get screened for prostate cancer?

factoid on October 29, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Well:
1. Do they go to the doctor? If so, how often? Men, by and large, don’t go to the doctor until something is really really wrong. Like they cut off their hand or they shot themselves in the face with an arrow during hunting season.
2. Are they like my family? Have they several relatives that died of prostate cancer? If so, then they probably go to get “screened” and thus a PSA (blood test) would be drawn in addition to routine care.
3. Are they symptomatic? Are they having trouble with urge and frequency in urinating? Are they over the age of 50 (I believe it is now)? If so, they probably would be screened. A PSA in someone with no symptoms or no family history is something akin to a mastectomy in a woman with no breast cancer history or diagnosis. Expensive and useless. Of course the mastectomy is more expensive, but still counts.
4. Have they any lumps on their, ahem, examination? You know the “turn your head and cough exam”? That’s what that one’s about. Most MD’s worth their salt do that examination on men to rule out prostate cancer.

I don’t know what your experience in the health care field is (nurse here), but drawing labs and doing all sorts of tests hither and yon on every patient is pointless, expensive, and just not worth anyone’s time or money.

mjk on October 29, 2007 at 3:04 PM

factoid on October 29, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Many are too young to worry.
Many are “between” insurance because of aging out of parent’s policy, job changes, college, etc.
Many are illegal.
Older people most at risk are generally covered under Medicare.
EVERYBODY GETS HEALTH CARE. IT’S FREE IN THIS COUNTRY. THEY JUST DON’T ALL PAY FOR IT, BUT NO ONE IS TURNED DOWN.

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 3:06 PM

That’s a hell of an ad… well done.

D2Boston on October 29, 2007 at 3:23 PM

We already basically have the same system as the British, but a stealth version.

Poor people and working poor get free care provided by taxpayers. Sometimes it’s slow and annoying.
Everybody else, who can afford to, doesn’t put up with that, and pays privately, through insurance obtained at work or privately.

EVERYONE GETS TREATED. EVEN THOSE WITH NO INSURANCE OR $

FOR POOR PEOPLE, THIS IS THE BEST THEY ARE EVER GONNA GET!

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 3:27 PM

But I think that there should be some safety net for the bottom rung of the economic ladder that can’t get a job that offers health insurance or pays enough to buy it on your own.

Two of my kids had college jobs that required a HS diploma only and provided full benefits. They’re out there, but it’s your responsibility to a) find ’em b) be qualified to get ’em.

I’ve two kids just graduated from college in May and don’t have jobs yet. Neither has health insurance at the moment. Is this the government’s fault or responsibility?

Bob's Kid on October 29, 2007 at 3:37 PM

The very, very least it seems one has to say about bureaucratic medicine is that, having put their lives in the hands of their governments, the peoples of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have nothing to show for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

What seems to have happened instead is that the Canadians, British, French, and Germans have become childless under the heavy taxes required to support their social “welfare” programs. Those social “welfare” programs, in turn, are providing for the muslims who are replacing the Canadians, British, French, and Germans. Whole peoples are phasing themselves out.

Here is a subject on which I would like to have information, even if only so as to rule out a dreadful suspicion: I would like to understand the involvement, if any, of muslim organizations and money in promoting social “welfare” programs that have the effect of funding the growth of muslim colonial populaces at the expense of the very peoples they’re replacing.

Kralizec on October 29, 2007 at 4:02 PM

The very, very least it seems one has to say about bureaucratic medicine is that, having put their lives in the hands of their governments, the peoples of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have nothing to show for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Huh? The list you are linking to shows the US being 38th in life expentancy with France being #10, Canada being #11, the UK #22 and Germany #23.

While we are looking at lists, consider https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html, a list of infant mortality rates compiled by the CIA. It shows that the American infant mortality rate (the rate of babies that die before their first birthday) is 50% higher in the US than in Germany, nearly double that of France, more than 25% higher than that of the UK and 40% higher than that in Canada.

Meanwhile each of these countries with their socialized medicine spend less on health care than we do.

So, yeah, other than longer lives and fewer dead babies, these countries get precious little else than significant savings from their socialized health care schemes.

factoid on October 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Rudy’s a strong communicator. He makes his case and he makes it clearly, concisely, and unapologetically. He would be a refreshing change from Bush’s hesitant communication style. I doubt Rudy would fail to take his case to the American people on important issues, like Bush does time and time again.

aero on October 29, 2007 at 4:32 PM

But he said that any such comparison is flawed, since it fails to take into account the additional investment in cancer education and screening in the United States. Much of the gap would be closed if other countries invested similar sums in catching cancer early.

If all Americans had access to preventive care, screenings, and treatment — through a single-payer system or another universal healthcare plan — the five-year survival rate would almost certainly be increased, since cancers would be caught sooner.

Whoa. Wait a second. Isn’t this the problem?

Socialized medicine and how slowly it operates forces people to put off things until the last possible minute. Hence the higher death rates, the failing system in Japan, etc.

Then the person goes and says if “Americans had access to preventive care” – it seems Americans -do- have better access to preventive care, right? Since our death rates are lower. That’d mean the the socialized systems should have more access to that, correct? Nice way to twist around the facts.

lorien1973 on October 29, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Rudy’s a strong communicator. He makes his case and he makes it clearly, concisely, and unapologetically. He would be a refreshing change from Bush’s hesitant communication style. I doubt Rudy would fail to take his case to the American people on important issues, like Bush does time and time again.

aero on October 29, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Yeah, I’m sure he’d do a good job explaining why he’d enact a new gun ban and give amnesty and benefits to illegals.

Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 6:19 PM

The question, per this National Post article about “medical tourism” up north, is whether suffering Canadians who don’t want to wait for government health care while they’re in pain are in worse shape than suffering Americans who can’t afford U.S. care in the first place:

Lets see, choose to be
A)alive, but with a medical bill I cant possibly pay or
B)dead with my medical bills all paid up

why is socialized care better again?

Resolute on October 29, 2007 at 6:32 PM

I have relatives who live in England and trust me the NHS is worse than they say. Most of our friends and family purchase private health insurance rather than rely on the NHS. Their cancer rates are TERRIBLE. Sometimes it takes 6 months or longer to get an appointment for an MRI or PET Scan. Many patients die before they have these tests. I don’t think those figures are included in the official NHS numbers because the patient has never actually been “treated” for cancer.

I wouldn’t trust the official NHS numbers farther than I could throw them.

Also, as for FREE health care. The value address tax (VAT) is 17 1/4%. This is added onto everything but food in the supermarket including services (like plumbers, accountants, etc). Petrol is more than $7.00 per gallon. It costs $2 per ten minutes to park on a meter in London.

In order words, there is no free lunch.

ukgoods on October 29, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Another day, another shot from the big “A” at Rudy.

How much do you have bet on the glacier winning? Must be enough to buy an iphone from the way you keep taking shots at the only Republican that can beat her.

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 29, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Must be enough to buy an iphone from the way you keep taking shots at the only Republican that can beat her.

Sorry for not being a shill who’ll mindlessly defend our guys when they’re lying to us to our faces.

Allahpundit on October 29, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Hopefully when Hillary signs the fairness doctorine there will be an axception for blogs.

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 29, 2007 at 7:02 PM

axception=exception

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 29, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Also, I am shocked, incredibly shocked that the officia British Government numbers make sociailized medicine look better thanan independant study from a non profit group.

No chance of spin from the British Governement, right?

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM

This can be solved so easily by any of the Repub candidates. Simply ask Hillary if her “Universal Health Care” legislation would preclude the medical benefits of all branches of government. If every member of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government would have to accept the same health care that they’re trying to shove down our throats, then there’d be no discussion about this at all.

So, c’mon Rudy, Fred, Mitt, ask her: “Senator, would YOU and your family accept this program in lieu of the benefits that you currently receive?”

That’ll shut’r up.

-FatOldGuy

Fogpig on October 29, 2007 at 7:19 PM

http://www.freemarketcure.com./
i believe i picked this up from someone here on HA. rather lengthy reads, a few videos as well. seems pretty clear to me that we dont need the govts hand in health care.

palefaced on October 29, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Thanks for the link palefaced! I will use it as an important resource for my blog and have added it to my blog archive. I’m coming out of the dark ages on my knowledge of the ‘blogosphere’. Thank you HotAir and MM. I may be able to contribute to society after all. I’m still learning.

ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Update: Embarrassing. You’re going to put out an ad on one of the two or three hottest domestic issues of the campaign and have your numbers be off by 30%

Well, shoot. I hate it when my candidate makes me regret cheering for him. Oh, well. The only one running a “flawless campaign” is Hillary.

aero on October 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM

I expect Democrats to make up numbers not Republicans! Sheesh!

Gatordoug on October 29, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Ok, so when “liberals” site “not-for profits” that contradict “government” sources – it is scripture, because “the man” always lies.

But, when “conservatives/republicans” site “not-for profits”, the “government” sources are who we should believe?

Not that I don’t doubt your “GOOGLE” search has been fruitful, but why would you so quickly defer to the UK system for “truth”…

Basic journalism question (not from GOOGLE) – “What does the “not-for profit have to say about the discrepancy?” I bet it goes something like – “Dude those socialist, incompetents, are just trying to cover their arse!”

Agrippa2k on October 29, 2007 at 8:50 PM

I haven’t had time to read all the comments, so someone may have made mention of this.

Of Americans who go overseas to pay for surgeries, etc…, I wonder how much of that is cosmetic surgeries, which would not be covered under insurance plans anyway.

In one of my wife’s magazines there was a whole article on medical tourism for different types of plastic surgery.

Cosmetic services make up a large portion of Surgical Tourism Canada’s offerings.

nailinmyeye on October 29, 2007 at 11:10 PM

the five-year survival rate would almost certainly be increased, since cancers would be caught sooner.

Only for those citizens who are deemed worthy to invest limited funds into. That leaves out the elderly and those not “essential” for the country to operate.

We know for a fact that rationed health care goes hand in hand with government health care systems.

csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 12:02 AM

New York Daily News – 6/26/98: Mayor Giuliani called the ruling a “very, very big victory for New York City and for New York State” that would keep in place the federal Medicaid reimbursement formula for hospitals serving poor patients without insurance. “Why the Clinton administration, that began on a note of wanting to give universal health care, ended up vetoing this particular area of legislation as a political matter, I will never understand” Giuliani said.
*
Draw your own conclusions.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:43 AM

Allahpundit: Shilling for Hillary since 2007

Has anyone read a blogger so out of touch with the Republican party?

mylegsareswollen on October 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Has anyone read a blogger so out of touch with the Republican party?

mylegsareswollen on October 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Has anyone read any republicans so out of touch with conservatives as to try to push Rudolf down their throats?

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM

I have had a herniated disc in my back since 1998. After five years mostly pain free after a series of epidural steroid treatments, I started having problems again with pain and losing feeling in my legs. My doctor thought the disc might have moved and was now pressing on a nerve, so he sent me for an MRI to determine if the disc had moved and it might be time to go the surgical route (I’m 35, so I really wouldn’t want to live with this another 40-50 years). Only they saw a bone lesion on the MRI and I was scheduled for a full-body bone scan to determine if there are any more lesions or if it’s possibly something as benign as a cyst (I’m waiting for the results). Where would I be now with socialized medicine? Probably still waiting for the MRI that found the bone lesion, assuming the doctor had even ordered one.

Alia on October 30, 2007 at 2:49 PM

THE feds should not be in the medical business period. since when has the govt been experts in anything other than military. HILLARY GET OUT OF OUR FACES!

rpower57 on October 30, 2007 at 4:30 PM

I didn’t see this brought up here, although I may have missed it, but one of the biggest reasons Americans go abroad for healthcare is because other countries are more lax when it comes to approving new drugs and procedures. If someone is critically ill and reads about some possible miracle cure that isn’t available here, he’ll take his chances in a foreign country.

You can sign up to be part of a study group and receive treatments that are new, but that is risky too.

Connie on October 30, 2007 at 6:09 PM