Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the move-or-die dept.

In the midst of the Obamacare/Trumpcare debate, there's news from the Annals of Internal Medicine that Canadian Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients live more than 10 years longer on average than patients with the same disease in the U.S. — universal healthcare plays a large role in that survival rate.

According to the CTV News story one factor is that Canadians with cystic fibrosis were told ten years earlier than Americans to adopt a high-calorie, high-fat diet, to take pancreatic enzyme supplements and vitamin supplements at every meal, and that Canadians were more likely to get lung transplants.

But one of the key differences between the two countries is that Canadians have universal, publicly funded health care while Americans do not.

In the study group, Canadian CF patients as a whole had a 77 per cent lower risk for death than U.S. patients with no health insurance or who health insurance status was unknown. They also had a 44 per cent lower death risk than Americans receiving continuous Medicaid or Medicare, and a 36 per cent lower risk than those receiving intermittent Medicaid or Medicare coverage.

Wikipedia summarizes:

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder that affects mostly the lungs, but also the pancreas, liver, kidneys, and intestine. Long-term issues include difficulty breathing and coughing up mucus as a result of frequent lung infections. Other signs and symptoms may include sinus infections, poor growth, fatty stool, clubbing of the fingers and toes, and infertility in males. Different people may have different degrees of symptoms.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:49PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:49PM (#479805)

    will wipe out that US$673B "savings" from Trumpcare and then some...

    So, many people will suffer and the US will still be worse off financially.

    For example, when people are really sick they will go on disability payments, or not be able to work and so qualify for Medicaid, or end up as criminals in prisons from lack of mental health care or drug addiction treatments, or will just not produce as much leading to lower tax revenues, or be ineffective soldiers leading to lots of other political costs, or will abuse emergency rooms, and so on...

    Of course, many of these costs may be born by the states not the federal government.

    Just both cruel and stupid changes...

    The USA would probably save the most money by Medicare for all!

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:56PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:56PM (#479812) Journal

    or not be able to work and so qualify for Medicaid

    Minor bitching on this one - to be honest, even if the are healthy they may not be able to work.

    Otherwise, true, public health tends to be more an investment than a cost, pretty much as a public education and public child/elderly care.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:51PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:51PM (#479887)

    > when people are really sick they will go on disability payments,

    We'll solve that problem by stopping those.

    > or not be able to work and so qualify for Medicaid,

    We'll solve that problem by stopping that.

    > or end up as criminals in prisons from lack of mental health care or drug addiction treatments,

    Sounds good. Just bought more shares in private prisons. Best performers in the market over the last three months

    > or will just not produce as much leading to lower tax revenues,

    Offset by the cuts above

    > or be ineffective soldiers leading to lots of other political costs,

    After their dishonorable discharges, which saves money, we'll budget for smarter bombs. Just bought stock, too.

    > or will abuse emergency rooms,

    Private security needs guns and tazers. Just bought those stocks too.

    > and so on...

    Keep trying. I see only upside for my campaign donors.