Can anyone help with fact check on this rep. propaganda?

[scentopine]

Been getting tons of crap like this. email, us mail. I'm also getting tons of democratic email but not much detailing specifics of health plan. These guys do everything lock step so media and voters are going to get pounded. Would be nice to have a response ready.

For example when it says 90% of americans get new hip in less than 6 months, versus 15% in briton - what percentage of americans get a new hip that need one?

========== starts here, latest talking points from Mark Kirk(r), IL =================

Inspired by Harper’s Magazine’s Index, here goes:

Facts You May Not Have Heard on the Coming Health Care Bill

CBO estimated cost of the Senate Democratic Health Care bill: $1.6 Trillion
2006 GDP for entire country of Canada: $1.2 Trillion (i)

Under the Democratic Health Care bill, fine for not buying health care: $1,000
Under California law, fine for having over 28.5 grams of marijuana on school grounds when school is open: $500 (ii)

CBO estimate of number of Americans who get health coverage under the Senate Democratic Health Care bill: 31 million
CBO estimate of Americans who lose coverage under the Democratic bill: 16 million (iii)

Percent of American women that survive cancer: 63%
Percent of EU women that survive cancer: 56% (iv)

Percent of American men that survive cancer: 68%
Percent of EU men that survive cancer: 47% (v)

Cost of health insurance in New Jersey, without lawsuit reform: $5,326 each
Cost of health insurance in California, with lawsuit reform: $2,565 each (vi)

US Census count of people “uninsured”: 49 million
Number counted who are illegal aliens: 9.5 million
Number counted who are only temporarily uninsured: 19 million
Number counted who make more than most Americans (+$75,000): 10 million
Number of American citizens, low income, lacking insurance for more than one year: 10.5 million (vii)

Percent of Americans receiving a new hip within 6 months: 90
Percent of Britons receiving a hip within 6 months: 15 (viii)

American neonatal specialists per 10,000 births: 6
UK neonatal specialists per 10,000 births: 3 (ix)

Current deficit: $1.8 Trillion
Dollars newly printed by the Fed with no assets standing behind them: $160 billion (x)

i CBO, World Bank
ii Newsmax.com, July 2, 2009, NORML California Statutes
iii CBO
iv "Recent cancer survival in Europe : a 2000–02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data," Lancet Oncology, 2007, No. 8, pages 784–796.
v Ibid.
vi American Health Insurance Plans November 2007 Overview.
vii Congressional Research Service
viii Congressional Record, May 18
ix Congressional Record, May 18
x US Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, SOMA Account

[rurallib]

1. wow is that ever twisted. They don't give the full stat

For example I believe the CBO stated the cost was 1.2T over A DECADE.
Not sure what Canada's GDP is, 1.2T would probably be close since they have 1/12 as many people as we do and our GDP is @14T (per year, not per decade)

I will leave this to the professionals. I rmember that the difference in cancer survival had something to do with reporting methods.
The number for those who "lose" coverage is 47M - 31M = 16M. Those people were uninsured anyway so they didn't "lose a damn thing. Of course this is Republicans saying they will not be covered, not real people.

Hope someone answers. I heard these 'points' at a republican HC rally the other day. These just arose from nowhere about two weeks ago.

[YewNork]

3. As if Canada and the UK were the only countries with government insurance plans.

Opponents keep making comparisons to Canada and Britain, but the system being proposed is not like either of those systems.
It's more like the system in Australia if anything else. A public insurance plan that would run alongside the private ones.

[gwashington2650]

8. Agreed

But what can you expect from the ignorant right-wingers.

[pkdu]

2. Start with

1. That is not the latest CBO scoring estimate
2. Heathcare coverage for 2500 dollars in CA ?...bullshit, I'm paying it right now...total bullshit.
3. "Temporarily uninsured"....think about that... if you are uninsured for ANY length of time its a nightmare...so , 19 Million people live thru that nightmare up to 11.5 months every year. Then add to that the follow-on nightmare of no coverage for "pre-existing conditions" once they do renew coverage.
4. Newsmax and congressional record as 'sources'?...please. Idiots like Kirk can say any shit they want and it ends up in the congressional record!

[Wickerman]

4. Horrible manipulation of stats, but also dated

and non-comprehensive.

On the hip thing it seems many Brits who report long wait times are not aware they can shop around to decrease the wait:

"Dr Doug Wright, clinical development manager at Norwich Union Healthcare said: "People aren't necessarily taking advantage of the information that is available and they may be waiting several months for something like a hip operation in their area, when it could actually be done more quickly elsewhere."

snip--

The increased use of diagnosis and treatment centres across the country is already beginning to have an incredible impact on NHS waiting times," he said.

For example, Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs the Ravenscourt Park diagnostic and treatment centre in west London, has seen waiting times for hip replacements drop from 204 days in 2002 to 30 days in 2003.

Health Minister John Hutton said: "The indisputable facts are that patients are getting speedier treatment on the NHS.

"Hardly anyone now has to wait more than nine months and the average wait is now around ten weeks."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3749801.stm

[YewNork]

6. I've noticed that many people in Britain take what their doctor tells them as gospel.

When my grandmother in Britain had a stroke, my mother went over from the US to visit her. She called up the doctor's office and made an appointment to discuss my grandmother's prognosis.
When my mother told her sister that she had made this appointment, her sister said "We don't do that, here." My mother, having lived in the US for 40 years asked "why not?" And the answer
she got was "We just don't." My mother kept the appointment and her sister grudgingly came along, but seemed a bit embarrassed to do it.

Well, they were welcomed into the doctor's office, given a tray of tea and cookies, and the doctor sat down with them for an entire hour and discussed my grandmother's prognosis
in detail, answering every question that my mother asked. At the end, the doctor remarked that he thought it was extremely nice to see some children take such an active
interest in their mother's well being.

Afterward, my mother asked her sister if she felt it was a good idea that they had gone to speak with the doctor, and she said "Yes, but we still don't do that here."

So, I think part of the British mentality is just to sit with a stiff upper lip and take what you are given. But when the wheel squeaks it does get some oil.

Similarly, a Brit may be able to get speedier treatment, if they take an active interest if finding it. Otherwise, if you say nothing then it can't be bothering you that much.

[Demoiselle]

5. Here you go:

First, a web site on the speed with which cancer patients get treated in the UK:

http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/cancerwaits/2008/q3/part6.html

And second, some comparative numbers on what the other Western Industrialized nations of the world pay, per capita, for health care. It's data from 2003, but I doubt that the fact that WE PAY TWICE AS MUCH in this country for health care has changed. And bear in mind that we're spending twice as much and we don't cover some 40 million of us in the bargain.

Total health expenditures per capita, 2003

United States $5711
Australia $2886
Austria $2958
Belgium $3044
Canada $2998
Denmark $2743
Finland $2104
France $3048
Germany $2983
Ireland $2466
Italy $2314
Japan $2249
Netherlands $2909
Norway $3769
Sweden $2745
United Kingdom $2317

[tiptoe]

7. The estimated benefit–cost ratio of a Vitamin D supplementation program for Europe is nearly 20 to 1

Estimated benefit of increased Vitamin D status in reducing the economic burden of disease in Western Europe  Feb 11, 2009   (Full article, PDF) – x

Abstract
Vitamin D has important benefits in reducing the risk of many conditions and diseases. Those diseases for which the benefits are well supported and that have large economic effects include many types of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, several bacterial and viral infections, and autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Europeans generally have low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D <25(OH)D> levels owing to the high latitudes, largely indoor living, low natural dietary sources of vitamin D such as cold water ocean fish, and lack of effective vitamin D fortification of food in most countries. Vitamin D dose-disease response relations were estimated from observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The reduction in direct plus indirect economic burden of disease was based on increasing the mean serum 25(OH)D level to 40 ng/mL, which could be achieved by a daily intake of 2000–3000 IU of vitamin D. For 2007, the reduction is estimated at €187,000 million/year. The estimated cost of 2000–3000 IU of vitamin D3/day along with ancillary costs such as education and testing might be about €10,000 million/year. Sources of vitamin D could include a combination of food fortification, supplements, and natural and artificial UVB irradiation, if properly acquired. Additional randomized controlled trials are warranted to evaluate the benefits and risks of vitamin D supplementation. However, steps to increase serum 25(OH)D levels can be implemented now based on what is already known.

Thus, the estimated benefit–cost ratio of a vitamin D supplementation program for Europe is nearly 20 to 1.

Summary and Conclusion
This study indicates increasing Europeans’ serum 25(OH)D levels to at least 40 ng/mL all year could significantly reduce rates and economic burdens of several types of diseases. In most European countries, the 25(OH)D levels are typically 15–20 ng/mL below this goal. The most important benefits would come for cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, respiratory infections, and dental/periodontal diseases. Although this study is based on a review of the scientific evidence to date and not on RCTs of vitamin D supplementation, as would be required for pharmaceutical drugs, the fact that solar UVB and vitamin D have coexisted with humans since our emergence as a species means that there is ample evidence by which to evaluate the benefits and risks. Given that the benefits of higher serum 25(OH)D are large and the risks are minimal, one can conclude that there is much more to gain than to lose by moving forward to implement a new vitamin D policy soon.

Food fortification has led to health benefits. Fortification of grain products with folic acid in Canada and the United States seems to be responsible for reduced risk of stroke (Yang et al., 2006) and birth with spina bifida (De Wals et al., 2008) and, likely, colon cancer (Bentley et al., 2008). A recent economic analysis of folic acid fortification in the United States estimated $3600 million/year saved by increasing the fortification level from 140 µg/100 g of enriched grain to 700 µg/100 g (Bentley et al., 2008).

Taken together, our findings indicate that it would be beneficial for the health ministries of European countries to familiarize themselves with the health benefits of vitamin D. There is a need not only for systems for achieving adequate vitamin D repletion and include the need for ensuring that the public and health care staff are adequately educated on the policy and on possible side effects that should be reported and also the need for the availability of rapid assessment of any possible adverse effects.

The conclusions of this paper are based primarily on ecological and observational studies. Many of the findings have been repeated in several different populations. Nonetheless, widespread acceptance of the health benefit of higher serum 25(OH)D levels would be greatly facilitated by multi-center randomized controlled trials.

• Introduction – p3
  
• Data and Methods – p4
  
  
  • Vitamin D–sensitive diseases
    
  • Vitamin D dose–health benefit relations
    
  • Economic burden of diseases in Europe – p5
  
  
• Results – p5
  
  
  • Table 1. Vitamin D dose–disease response relations from observational studies – p5
    
    
    • Hip fractures
      
    • Cancer, colorectal incidence
      
    • Cancer, breast, incidence
      
    • Colorectal cancer survival
      
    • Breast cancer survival
      
    • Cardiovascular disease, incidence
      
    • Coronary heart disease, incidence
      
    • Coronary heart disease, death
      
    • Hypertensive disease, incidence
      
    • Peripheral artery disease, prevalence
      
    • Diabetes mellitus, prevalence
      
    • Diabetes mellitus, incidence, males
      
    • Congestive heart failure, death
      
    • COPD
      
    • Multiple sclerosis, incidence
      
    • Multiple sclerosis, case-fatality rate
      
    • Mortality rate
    
    
  • Table 2. Results of RCTs of vitamin D for disease prevention – p7
    
    
    • Type 1 diabetes mellitus incidence, infants
      
    • Hip fractures
      
    • All-cancer incidence, postmenopausal women
      
    • Seasonal influenza, common cold, postmenopausal black women
      
    • Mortality rate, meta-analysis
    
    
  • Cancer
    
  • Cardiovascular diseases
    
  • Diabetes mellitus
    
  • Infectious diseases
    
  • Other vitamin D-sensitive diseases
    
  • Beneficial effects for vitamin D–sensitive diseases
    
  • Economic burdens of disease – p12
  
  
• Discussion – p12
  
  
  • Overall effect of increased serum 25(OH)D levels
    
  • Limitations of estimates
    
  • Adverse effects of vitamin D supplementation
    
  • Roles of environment and genetics
    
  • Sources of vitamin D – p14
  
  
• Summary and conclusion – p15
  
• Disclosure
  
• References