Warm and Fuzzy Re-regulation

Scott Gottleib, writing in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal writes- “Cancer survival rates in the U.K. are substantially lower than in the U.S. and the gap continues to widen.” Welcome to the joys of regulation.

The article mentioned above is not in the Journal's online free site, but has been copied at "The World of DTC Online Marketing" site. It speaks to the cost of policies intended to reduce the cost of keeping people alive. In Britain money trumps life. Gottleib fears we will follow suit.

Gottleib's opening paragraphs sums up much of the article-

Pfizer recently said it’s exiting the development of drugs for common conditions like heart disease. This is part of a shift underway in the pharmaceutical industry to give up on routine medical problems in favor of discovering “specialty” drugs for rare diseases and unmet medical needs like cancer.

The shift is driven in part by the industry’s critics in Washington, who have long maligned drug companies for targeting too many routine medical problems with drugs that were “merely” tweaks on existing medicines. Now these same detractors, led by House Democrats, are proposing controls on access to and eventually pricing of the specialty drugs as well. Under a Barack Obama presidency, this is one way they’ll pay for the candidate’s plan to create a Medicare-like program for the under-65 crowd. These new controls—based on a view of medical care as a commodity to be purchased at the lowest price, with little allowance for innovation—could push drug development over a tipping point.

Government programs that deal directly with access, and thus will attempt to control the cost of such access, to medical care, such as the one Obama proposes, can't help but manipulate the development of new treatments and, with them, future survival rates.

Another article of interest in the Weekend's WSJ was an editorial entitled "Another 'Deregulation' Myth" which outlines another of many factors contributing to the banking mess. In this case it was a 2004 change in banking rules that conformed the capital requirements of American banks to standards throughout the rest of the world. It was called Basel II. As the editors state-

Was Basel II a libertarian plot cooked up at the Cato Institute? Not quite. It was the product of years of effort by the world's major central banks, intended to avoid crises such as the U.S. savings and loan disaster. Basel embraced the theory that a common set of global banking standards and more intensive study of the risks of particular assets would yield both more efficient use of capital and a more stable financial system.
We now know it did not create stable investment banks, but the SEC could be forgiven for thinking that if it was good enough for the world's central bankers, it was good enough for the commission. As Ms. Nazareth said of the SEC's new approach, "It's largely modeled after Federal Reserve-type supervision and I can't imagine anyone would question that kind of approach." Few did. Swiss banking regulators are only now raising mandatory capital ratios above those permitted under Basel II

So the government told American banks how to do their business, full of good intentions, and wound up with a boatload of unintended consequences.

That, of course, will never happen in Democratic administrations.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at October 20, 2008 11:38 AM
Comments
Comment #267558

>So the government told American banks how to do their business, full of good intentions, and wound up with a boatload of unintended consequences.

That, of course, will never happen in Democratic administrations.
Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at October 20, 2008 11:38 AM

Lee,

I’m well aware that the subjec of this piece is NOT the economy, or even medicine, but rather government intervention…however, you threw this out there as if it were proven, unquestioned fact, so here goes MY proven, unquestioned fact:

Our economic disaster has NOTHING to do with government intervention and EVERYTHING to do with the unbridled lust of monetary gain by speculators and gamblers in the rarefied atmosphere of ‘free market’ derivative buyers.

I assume you too are trying to blame this mess on quasi-regulated corporations like Fannie Mae, but they hold a very small percentage of the blame, and if they were the only problem…we would not now be having a serious problem.

As far as the medical part of the article…if it is no more accurate than the economic part…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #267559

Wall Street Journal: We Wuz Wrong.
Response on Wall Street: Readers drop dead from shock.

Wall Street is trying evade responsibility, to be frank. So are Republicans. You’re bringing out this Model, and trying to pin everything on it, just like you tried to pin everything on Freddie and Fannie (secondary mortgage markets that were losing market share, and share of loans handled in the Subprime market as the bubble got bigger), when the truth is, these two systems failed merely because your people made things too damn complicated and obtuse for anybody to get a handle on what things were worth in the market.

As for Dr. Gottlieb, He’s got some major conflicts of interest on this matter. If drugs get cheaper, doesn’t he make less money?

People like him are invested in the status quo of politics as it has been run.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #267565

Lee - I understand the issues with socialized medicine. What do you propose to do about the 40+ million people without medical care or the fact that HMOs and other insurance providers use preexisting conditions and loopholes to deny payment to people with insurance. In addition, while Americans may be surviving, if they get cancer, even with insurance, they are likely to go broke. We have a health industry that profits from denying care to people or at least paying for care for people. I believe that catastrophic health expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. I think if we all put our heads together we can find a way to cover everyone, make sure that people don’t go bankrupt if they get sick (especially if they have insurance), and allow for healthy competition for insurance and care providers in way that is cheaper and more effective than what we have now. I refuse to believe that what we have now is the best that our creativity and ingenuity have to offer.

mccain is trying to paint Obama’s health care proposal and socialized health care but all it does is provide the option for people to buy into the same plan that he and mccain both have access to and it provides protection from refusal to cover and preexisting condition denials. If the right thinks that the free market is so much better and efficient than government run plans don’t you think that these private insurance companies will be able to compete? Dennis Kucinich was the only Democrat calling for state-run single-payer health care for everyone. I favor this plan but I also understand that it isn’t going to happen in this country in my lifetime. In lieu of that, Obama’s plan is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: tcsned at October 20, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #267567

Stephen,

The status quo in a more regulated economy is stated in my intro to the article. Death rates from cancer are greater in Gret Britain- with socialized, government provided, medical care.

Marysdude,

You can make such statments all day every day, but government intervention is still all over this crisis. But, suppose you were half right. I could also state that carbon dioxide contains five times as much oxygen per molecule as atmospheric air, so you ought to be happy to breathe in a room full of it. My qualifier is truer than your assertion. Care to take me up on the conclusion?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #267568

Thank you Lee for sharing your research. Our pharmaceutical companies have been attacked for years by the liberal socialists as well as many of our other big and crucial industries. Most of the world’s most common and effective prescription medications have been developed in the U.S. under considerable regulation.

What many socialist liberals don’t seem to understand is that private business producing our new medicines, energies, autos, foods, etc. are doing so as part of the entrepreneurial spirit that has characterized our success as a country.

Our constitution was designed to encourage the individual to excel with government existing to make certain that in the pursuit of our individual dreams we did not violate the individual dreams of others.

Liberal socialists today want government to encourage and enable groups to seize the fruits of the labor of others by virtue of higher taxes on success and in the case of Obama, punish successful businesses with “windfall taxes”.

Where once we celebrated the success of others, today we must steal from others by a concept Obama describes as “spreading the wealth around”.

This new concept has nothing to do with “fairness”, and everything to do with power. Only government has the power to create “new rights” and then enforce those new rights at the point of a gun. Liberal socialists will decide who has too much and who is deserving of the excess thus determined. Under a liberal socialists government the entrepreneurial spirit will be crushed and discarded.

When government regulation and taxes become an even more serious and overbearing obstacle to the pursuit of our dreams of individual economic success those dreams will seldom, if at all, be realized.

Liberal socialists drool at the prospect of divvying up what they consider the excessive wealth of others without ever contemplating the depletion of that wealth by their theft of it.

Find yourself, as a conservative, adrift in a leaking boat with five liberals and only you will be plugging the leak or bailing water all the while being told how stupid you are.

Magical thinking by liberal socialists allows them to believe that eating the heart of someone who has more than they do will endow to them what they envy in others.

Posted by: Jim M at October 20, 2008 2:05 PM
Comment #267569

“but all it does is provide the option for people to buy into the same plan”

So not one penny of my money will go to support his plan unless I buy into it?

Posted by: kctim at October 20, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #267570

tscned,

Sounds like you’re willing to trade dead for broke.

By the way, I have no insurance. Can’t afford it. We had a long discussion of this some months ago and I’ll tell you that the system in France actually looks pretty good to me. That government lets Doctors be doctors, greatly reduces the paperwork burden and takes the fear of tort issues out of medical practice. Most of all the provision of medical care itself is privately owned, so it is not burdened with either government ownership or government meddling.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #267575

Freddie Mac Secretly Paid Republican Firm to Kill Regulation

Posted by: womanmarine at October 20, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #267583

Lee - I don’t want to trade dead for broke - I just don’t see why we have to make decisions like that when they seem unnecessary other than for HMOs to make more money.

I have been interested in France’s system too. I think all options should be on the table. I don’t have anything against private insurance with proper regulation to ensure that they don’t force doctors or patients into making health care decisions based on someone trying to squeeze every last penny of profit out of the system.

Posted by: tcsned at October 20, 2008 4:01 PM
Comment #267588

If national healthcare is so good, why do Canadians carry health insurance that allows them to come to the US for major operations?

I keep hearing about the 40+ million without health insurance. Who are these people? A couple of years ago I had to go to a local hospital for blood tests. While I was waiting in the outpatient area, I noticed two signs on the wall. One was in Spanish and the other in English. The sign basically said; “if you are an illegal, we cannot ask for your papers; if you have no insurance, we cannot turn you away; no matter what your situation, we must provide health care to you”.

My daughter worked in the finance department of a hospital in MO, when my son-in-law was in college. Every month they would go through bills that low income people could not pay. The bills were written off. I don’t know if the hospital took the loss or if they were reimbersed by the feds. But I do know, nobody was turned away because they had no insurance.

Pelosie and Reid want to pass another stimulus package to help states, like CA, because they are in debt. The free healthcare of illegals and anyone else has broken the medical system. If dems are interested in helping the high cost of healthcare, why don’t they pass laws protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits?

Is there any business that the left does not look at as a piggy bank?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 20, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #267589

Let’s all panic. Death rates from cancer in Japan are much lower. Is that because of less regulation?

The difference between science and boogie men is rather obvious.

Memo to Lee, one of the largest heart disease centers in the world is in your back yard. It has little to do with either regulation or deregulation. It has to do with dedicated scientists and grants, both private and government.

Drug companies make drugs to make money. Not on the basis of doing the most good. This is why a study recently showed that most of the new cholesterol drugs were no more effective than the ones that were already generic.

BTW, cholesterol may have absolutely nothing to do with heart disease. Men like Debakey knew this and spoke about it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DE1330F93AA35757C0A961948260

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 20, 2008 4:33 PM
Comment #267592

Lee Jamison-
My interest is not in more or less regulation, but better. Also, though, we have to consider the price we pay for being one of the few industrialized nations where healthcare is treated as a privilege and not a right. How much productivity do we lose, how much quality of life?

We need reform, one way or another. I just get the sense that the Right is simply exercising a general fear of change here, and letting industry flacks like Dr. Gottlieb convince them that the way out of this mess is to once again cater to their industries interests.

We’ve catered to them, and now another approach is needed, because catering to them made such a mess of regulatory reforms, whether regulating or de-regulating, that the system simply does not work anymore.

Oldguy-
That may have less to do with the quality of Canadian Healthcare, and more to do with the large number of prestigious medical institutions within our border. You have to consider that much of Canada also lives within a hundred miles of the US border, so there’s an element of being able to access those institutions as well.

Even so, even given what you say or what Lee says, the situation is such that organizations like the AMA and the the American Cancer Society are treating universal healthcare as a must. The simple truth is, even if the quality of our healthcare is good once you get it, it’s often inefficiently managed, extraordinarily overpriced, and denied to people for the most idiotic of reasons. If healthcare suffers somewhat, but more people get it, and remain healthier, that’s a better system.

Let’s put that emergency room situation in perspective, though: it’s the nine stitches one stitch would have prevented, half the time.

There is no good that can come of denying anybody healthcare. If an epidemic breaks out, you want people coming to see the doctor right away. If you’re looking to have fewer people die from cancer, it’s better to have it caught on a test, on a check up, when the disease is at its early stages, than after it’s gone to later stages and perhaps spread.

And what good comes of bankrupting people for essentially doing the right thing, the natural thing? If your kid has a broken arm, you get them to the ER, have it set, put the cast on, and worry about cost later. If you’re having a heart attack, you get to a hospital immediately, and don’t wait. Then you worry about the bills.

But after the emergencies, then what? What about follow-ups? What about therapy?

And what about having preventative care, routine check-ups and tests?

What about seeing the people who know what they’re talking about, choosing your own doctor, and a million other little things? I mean, one reason that people are going for nationalized healthcare, to be plain, is that they’ve encountered a bureacracy in the private market far worse than anything they’ve been told by Republicans would show up in nationalized healthcare. What could be worse than this? At least, they reason, they can hold these people accountable.

People want healthcare that’s broadly available, efficient, which gets them help when they need it, which helps them prevent problems, not just pick up the pieces. California is suffering because many people are being forced to seek the healthcare provider of last resort. Why continue this ad hoc, Johnnie-Come-Lately approach? It’s probably cheaper to encourage people to come in for regular checkups and practice preventative medicine than to absorb the casualties of a system that fails to treat people until their illnesses and injuries become severe, and therefore more difficult and expensive to treat.

As for Piggy banks comments like yours, I could reply with barb about the Right not knowing a special interest it didn’t like, but that would be a distortion, too. Let’s be honest here: when’s the last time you convinced a person on the left that this was their actual motive?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #267594

Lee Jamison-
On another note, what might be of more effect on the drug industry, if you could get the Drug Companies to agree to it, would be biochemical patent reform. There are any number of drugs that are not being found through research or being put into the pipeline for use on the market because so many people own so many pieces of the research on metabolic pathways. Patent pooling in such cases could reduce litigation costs, and also lead to Americans reaping the benefits on all the research being done.

The key is not necessarily less or more regulation, but better regulation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #267596

Lee, and stealing can lead to a wealthier lifestyle. Cherry picking data to make a broad policy argument is wholly insufficient to be valid.

Their costs for health care are dramatically lower than ours. And where is your researched data on causality of the higher mortality of cancer patients? Could it be that they have a higher incidence of environmentally or dietary caused lethal forms of cancer? If so, the health care delivery system is an irrelevant factor, isn’t it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #267597

“Our” pharmaceutical companies have all been bought out by international conglomerates with the resources to bribe politicians, and endlessly advertise designer versions of their products in the media which have such disclaimers as “may cause difficulty breathing or even death”. The end result of more health care for more people will be more pills causing more problems but creating more profits for people in Basel.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 20, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #267601

If regulation means universal coverage at the cost of decreased innovation than so be it. I’m tired of friends taking jobs they don’t want for the health care. I’m tired of our businesses being hamstrung. I’m tired of paying more for insurance carriers to figure out ways of not covering someone. The state of affairs in this country is ridiculous. If they can do it in Cuba, they can do it here.

Posted by: Max at October 20, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #267606

GPs paid £1 a time not to refer patients to hospital
Concerns about payments just to meet quotas GPs paid £1 a time not to refer patients to hospital

This article in the London Times is interesting as it highlights some of the pitfalls of national health service as practiced in England.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4974884.ece

Posted by: Jim M at October 20, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #267611

Jim M,

Are you completely unfamiliar with HMO’s and PPO’s? The rewards for non-referals are much higher than 1 pound.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 20, 2008 7:21 PM
Comment #267613

A slightly less political extrapolation take on the subject:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 20, 2008 7:25 PM
Comment #267615

Jim M-
This is supposed to be a cost-saving measure, based on the idea that many people are being referred that shouldn’t be. I believe it’s a conservative government pushing it.

It’s simpler and easier to trust people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #267617

It’s easy to bash other health systems and not offer any solution to providing everyone in this country with at least reasonable health care that won’t bankrupt them if they happen to get sick. No one benefits from people going bankrupt nor does any one benefit from having sick people go untreated. The GOPs “you’re on your own” plan is one issue that will ensure minority status for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: tcsned at October 20, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #267635

womanmarine,
That is actually not unexpected. I keep saying on these pages that one of the things I fear most is large organizations and the power they concentrate. The article you link is a good example of that.

D.a.n., in the string to one of my other articles last week had a quote from David Rockefeller about the desirability of an international industrial elite running the world. Being supicious that the elder George Bush was complicit in such a world view was why I voted againt him in 1992. I was always afraid we had bought the same bad dog with the younger Bush. Now I’m almost certain I was right.

Buying people from both parties is how that will happen to us. Encouraging us to be distracted by petty partizan crap while both parties stab us in the back is how they will keep the most ardent of us from noticing.


Stephen, I am not afraid of change. Conservative principles in business encourage dynamism and evolutionary development. Nor am I afraid of regulation per se. Your comment a couple of weeks ago about having regulations that focused on a desired effect, as, to use your example, focusing on a cattle ramp that does not cause slippage instead one that specifies surface, seems a wise choice. That allows innovation and efficiency when intelligently applied.

Banking industry regulations specifying exactly how accounting rules will be applied were the subject of the second part of this article, though. It is regulations where the government crawls into your factory and starts telling you how to do your job, or into your radio station and tells you how to make editorial decisions that I object to.
I also object to the idea that we can retroactively apply new ideas to what people failed to recognize as significant problems in the past. We could foster an atmosphere in which business and government work together to create regulations and do things more safely so lawyers are not a part of the design calulus of a product made in America.

As to the patent situation, the current patent law is now about 20 years old. It was modified to permit longer protections for medical patents because of the length of medical review (from 16 years to, as I recall, 21 years). It was obsolete when it was signed.

I think the whole idea of patent protection needs to be modified, perhaps by the creation of a body authorized under federal law and having representatives from each state to make changes year-by-year recognizing the fluid state of the intersection of science and industrial practice. Patent law is supposed to provide enough protection to encourage innovation, while limiting the reach of intellectual ownership so the new developments eventually become the common property of all the people. We can’t get the latter without the former.

Now, though, we have an atomic-clock innovative world with a regulator that works by a pendulum escapement. We need something like a Fed for patent protections.

All that may sound a little idealistic for a conservative but, aw shucks, I just think that sort of thing is possible if both sides don’t just see evil people on the other side of the regulatory fence.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #267637

tscned,
“The GOPs “you’re on your own” plan is one issue that will ensure minority status for the foreseeable future.”

Look at our long discussion on medical stuff in Getting Rights Right and the article immediately following. That was one of the most constructive conversations I’ve been a part of on any site.

Yeah, I want to win in political contests, but I want more that the results of our discussions are better than just notches on the handle of my rhetorical gun. If Republicans win we get politicians who use their label as much to manipulate me as to defeat you. If Democrats win you get the same thing in reverse.

And too damn often they won’t tell us who they really work for. We all need to wake up and realize their labels don’t do a damn thing for us. Right now I think Democrats are more suckered than Republicans are. At least we’ve very recently fought our own people tooth-and-nail on things like immigration and judicial appointees and a half-liberal presidential candidate.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:49 PM
Comment #267638

Max,

I’m sure they’d take you in Cuba, if you want to go.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:53 PM
Comment #267656

Lee,

D.a.n., in the string to one of my other articles last week had a quote from David Rockefeller about the desirability of an international industrial elite running the world. Being supicious that the elder George Bush was complicit in such a world view was why I voted againt him in 1992. I was always afraid we had bought the same bad dog with the younger Bush. Now I’m almost certain I was right.

Funny, I couldn’t find that quote on anywhere but conspiracy theory websites, which is why I asked d.a.n. to attribute it. But hey, that’s always a good basis for voting. Didn’t John McCain father black kids? I think there’s a quote from him somewhere.

This keeps getting funnier and funnier.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 21, 2008 1:14 AM
Comment #267687

SD

I do not know much about national health care in other countries, but I do have a grasp of the Canadian system. ConerningSD

I do not know much about national health care in other countries, but I do have a grasp of the Canadian system. Concerning Canadians maintaining health insurance that allows them to come to the US for health care. We fished, for many years, at a camp located about 100 miles north of Toronto. The woman who owned the camp had a son who completed medical school and he had to promise his mother that he would not move to America when he became a practicing physician. The reason Canadian doctors move to the US is money.

You said: “That may have less to do with the quality of Canadian Healthcare, and more to do with the large number of prestigious medical institutions within our border. You have to consider that much of Canada also lives within a hundred miles of the US border, so there’s an element of being able to access those institutions as well.”

I will say three things about this statement:

1.The reason we have better health institutions and more of them is because of competition. Competition is brought about by free enterprise. The left is always in favor of the breakup of companies and the reason is it allows more competition, which allows more competitive pricing.

When the government controls the only system of healthcare, there is no completion, hence no growth of the system. Doctors and nurses move to America because they make more money. Why would a doctor or nurse want to stay in a country, where the government controls their salary?

2. Secondly, there is a shortage of healthcare in Canada, because of the reasons I mentioned above and this leads to the inability to receive care in a timely manner. If you suffer a heart attach in Canada, it may be 6 months before you can schedule by-pass surgery. In the mean time, they try to treat you with medication or you just die. I have talked to Canadians and they said they carry optional insurance in order to cross the border and receive immediate help.

The nearest hospital to the area, which we fished, was Toronto, 100 miles away. There are smaller towns and cities in our area, but they only provide clinics.

3. The Canadians pay a high price for national healthcare in the form of taxes. Besides federal, provincial, local, and sales taxes; they also pay a 7 ½ or 8 ½ % consumer tax for healthcare. I can’t remember which, but I do know we were able to apply for a reimbursement. This would be $7.50 or $8.50 per one hundred dollars spent on all consumer goods. And add to that the cost of carrying another health policy that would provide the fast, and good healthcare that people want for their family.
Canadians maintaining health insurance that allows them to come to the US for health care. We fished, for many years, at a camp located about 100 miles north of Toronto. The woman who owned the camp had a son who completed medical school and he had to promise his mother that he would not move to America when he became a pracitcing physician.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #267698

Lee,

You should see Michael Moore’s film about healthcare. He takes a bunch of folks that can’t get any healthcare and brings them to Cuba, where they receive help. God forbid you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to take an option of last resort.

Oldguy,

Competition doesn’t drive a lot of healthcare. For instance, emergency care. When you’ve just been hit by a car, you’re not weighing your hospital alternatives. You just want to get to a hospital, any hospital, as fast as you can.

Posted by: Max at October 21, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #267796

“Cancer survival rates in the U.K. are substantially lower than in the U.S. and the gap continues to widen.”

This is misleading, they are wider because of several factors, primarily dealing with lifestyle, nutrition, and preventative care, which the English in my opinion are behind than the U.S. on. They will always have more cancer deaths than the U.S. because, especially among older British citizens.

Posted by: Jon at October 21, 2008 4:59 PM
Comment #267817

Jon,

Is preventive care not covered under the British medical system? That would seem a foolish way to save money on national health care!

Googlumpugus,

I’m well aware of the Medical Center, of course. A number of my paintings are there, somewhere…

I also spent two weeks there with burns when I was a college student. That’s a good story, but way off topic.

Max,

I’m also aware of Moore’s film. He is famous for telling things as he sees them, just as, in a former time, Norman Rockwell was, but more favorably for his own country.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 8:24 PM
Comment #267885

“Is preventive care not covered under the British medical system? That would seem a foolish way to save money on national health care!”

-Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 08:24 PM

It is and isn’t, for example, screenings for some types of common cancers aren’t on the national level, so let’s say you want an exam in London (not real, but for example), but it’s not covered by national health care/insurance, so you’d have to go to Leeds, or York, to get a screening.

It’s not always like that, as most hospitals do the same things we do in the US, but there are loopholes where people can be denied or more on point, not INFORMED that a type of screening or prev. care is available. Here in the US, everywhere you go there’s cancer patient outreach programs, programs to inform for prevention, and many other outlets. There are surges in GB to optimize the healthcare system to inform as well as treat, but it’s slower than the US for sure.

Posted by: Jon at October 22, 2008 12:06 PM
Post a comment