Health Care Facts

America is about to engage in another debate about health care. By now, we have heard all of the justifications for more governmental involvement. The U.S. medical system is too expensive and quite inefficient in delivering health care to its citizens. Critics also argue that socialized systems of health care are more effective.

These are the foundational arguments for change that you find in columns, commentaries, and even documentaries. A recent article in Forbes magazine and a research paper published by the National Center for Policy Analysis provides a quick rebuttal to these arguments and put some relevant facts on the table.

Let’s address the first question. Does the U.S. spend too much on health care? The best answer is yes and no. America does devote more resources per capita than do socialized nations. But when you compare the outcomes, the U.S. is neither better nor worse than “the rest of the developed world at controlling expenditure growth.” And more spending on medicine isn’t a bad thing. For example, “Britain has only a fraction of the number of CT and MRI scanners per patient population that the U.S. has.”

What about health care delivery? A dialysis patient “had to wait 62 days for access in Canada versus 16 days in the U.S.” Similar disparities in delays can be found with other treatments when comparing developing countries to the U.S.

What about effective treatment for various medical conditions. The U.S. exceeds other countries in treatments and cures for such diseases as cancer, diabetes, and hypertension. For example, “U.S. women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56% for European women. Men in the U.S. have a five-year survival rate of 66%, compared with 47% for European men.”

Before Congress begins to tinker with health care in America, we need to put these relevant facts on the table. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.