Read other letters about this article

• Monday, June 29, 2009 08:36 PM

  "Dumb Beyond Belief" i an apt title for Chagos' comment.

  I realize I'm playing with fire, responding to a troll - here's hoping the three billy goats gruff are reading this thread too.

  Look Chagos, your tired wanking about the relative benefits of US care versus Canadian care are charming in their vintage authenticity - it's almost as if you're accurately recreating the lies and obfuscations of the early 90s on purpose. I can almost hear a crummy Pearl Jam song in the background, and I have a weird urge to put on a flannel shirt.

  Unfortunately, much like grunge eventually devolved into shite like Creed, your argument has aged badly. It took me about 5 seconds to find something I'd like to encourage you to read:

  http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/CAN_Comparison_Sheet.pdf

  Cancer Survival

  Gorey, K. et al, “An International Comparison of Cancer Survival: Toronto, Ontario and Detroit Metro

  Areas,” American Journal of Public Health 87(7):1156-1163 (07/1997)

  Contact: Kevin M. Gorey, PhD (gorey@uwindsor.ca)

  Major Findings:

  • Low-income Americans (residing in census tracts with a median income of less than $17,800 at the

  time of diagnosis) had significantly lower survival rates than higher-income Americans (median

  census tract income of $51,500 or more) for 12 of 15 kinds of cancer studied. Canadians had no

  such association for any cancer. 1

  • Compared with their American counterparts, low-income Canadians had a significant survival

  advantage for 13 of the 15 kinds of cancer studied.

  • Authors’ conclusion: the advantage that low-income Canadians enjoy in cancer survival is due to

  their equitable health system. A single-payer system in the U.S. would likely a comparably equitable

  system.

  OOH OOH! And also this:

  Cardiac Care

  Tu, J. et al, “Use of Cardiac Procedures and Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Myocardial Infarction in

  the United States and Canada,” NEJM, 336(21)1500-1505 (05/22/97)

  Contact: Jack V. Tu, MD, PhD (tu@ices.on.ca)

  Major Findings:

  • One-year mortality rates following myocardial infarction were virtually identical for both countries

  (34.3% U.S. vs. 34.4% Canada).

  • U.S. patients were far more likely to undergo expensive and invasive treatments such as coronary

  angiography (34.9% U.S. vs. 6.7% Canada); percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

  (11.7% U.S. vs. 1.5% Canada); and coronary-artery bypass surgery (10.6% U.S. vs. 1.4% Canada).

  Eisenberg, M. et al, “Outcomes and the Cost of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the United

  States and Canada,” Arch. Int. Med. 165:1506-1513 (07/11/05)

  Contact: Mark J. Eisenberg, MD, MPH (meisenberg@epid.jgh.mcgill.ca)

  Major Findings:

  • Canadians had lower rates of unadjusted in-hospital mortality (1.4% Canada vs. 2.2% U.S.). There

  was no difference between the countries after controlling for demographic and clinical differences.

  • The average length of a hospital stay in Canada was 16.8% longer

  • Adjusted costs of CABG in the U.S. were 82% higher than in Canada

  • Average in-hospital treatment costs were nearly twice as much in the U.S. ($20,673 U.S. vs. $10,373

  Canada / Median: $16,036 U.S. vs. $7,880 Canada).

  • Administrative costs consumed more of the total cost of treatment in the U.S. (38.2% of total

  costs in the U.S. vs. 31.7% in Canada).

  —Rosstradamus Read Rosstradamus's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel