<p>Regarding the first article above, I'd like some clarification of elective surgeries vs. non-elective. I think you'll find that in most countries, emergency surgeries are done more or less immediately. </p>
<p>Regarding the second article, it's anecdotal unless you have specifically research the UK NHS formulary in order to determine exactly which drugs are approved for those conditions, and I'm nearly positive (though I'll admit that I haven't looked into the formulary) that each one of those conditions would have at least one drug to treat those diseases. And there's no telling whether or not those SIX patients even tried the approved drugs and whether or not they did or didn't work and why they stopped them if they did try them. Often people want the drugs with the fewest side effects, not necessarily the drug that's been tested most heavily (this one's important. National Health models are often slow to approve new drugs until they are tested more significantly than the US requires them to be tested to go on the market) and shown to work best. And again, it was six patients, and we don't know their stories in depth.</p>
<p>And about the obese being refused orthopedic surgeries: orthopedic surgeons here OFTEN refuse to do surgeries on people unless they lose weight.</p>
<p>And to address the waiting times: actually, the myths of waiting times are constantly being debunked. An article (op-ed) from the NY Times just last month wrote how many United States politicians seem to continue the myths even though they are not true. I'm quoting liberally from the article because it's only available at this time to NY Times Select subscribers, and so I had to get the article through my university's subscription. The article is titled "The Waiting Game" and it was from the July 16, 2007 issue of the New York Times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.</p>
<p>Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that ''the poorest Americans are getting far better service'' than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?</p>
<p>A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: ''In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.''</p>
<p>A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.</p>
<p>We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures -- and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's performance.</p>
<p>Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's that last paragraph that is, to me, particularly appalling. The article goes on to give an example of a UCLA professor who nearly died of cancer when his insurance company tried to stall his getting a biopsy, but I'm sure most of us have our own examples of the waiting that our own insurance companies make us do. The article ends admitting that what most politicians might be talking about is that citizens of the US do receive hip replacements faster than citizens of Canada. However, it goes on to point out that most hip replacements in the US, considering that they're in patients over 65 years old, are paid for and covered by Medicare, which (just to clarify), is as close to a to a single-payer health system that we've got.</p>
<p>Furthermore, and I'm too lazy to find these polls, but again, I will produce them if asked, no other countries want to switch to the US model. While no one is entirely happy with their own system, Americans are, by and large, much more dissatisfied with their own system than the citizens of other countries, and when polls are run in other countries specifically asking people if they'd like to switch to a private health care model, the resounding answer is no. So what are we measuring this supposed lesser-quality universal health care by if not patient satisfaction, longer life spans, longer HEALTHY lifespans, fewer infant deaths, less spent per capita on health care, or more people covered?</p>