The recent death of Abdel Baset al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, three years after his release from prison in Scotland has drawn an interesting Wall Street Journal editorial explaining why he lived so long after the initial prognosis that he only had three months to live.
According to the Journal, the doctor who made the initial estimate explained that his estimate was based upon the National Health Service medical treatment in Scotland, where certain standard chemotherapy treatments were not available because of their cost. In contrast, Mr. Megrahi undoubtedly obtained excellent treatment in Libya, where he could receive better chemotherapy.
The Journal draws the obvious conclusion that, unconstrained by government conclusions on cost-effectiveness, Mr. Megrahi lived almost 3 years longer than he would have in the Scottish, highly regulated, medical environment. The potential for similar results to occur in the United States under Obama care is obvious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Dick-- I think you, and the WSJ editors, are quite wrong on this. The obvious conclusion to draw from this story is that better health outcomes are obtainable when the cost of health care is no issue. I'm sure those standard chemotherapy treatments are readily available in Scotland, they're just not covered by the NHS. If al Megrahi had been a normal citizen, he likely could have afforded chemo. Because he was, in fact, a jailed criminal with no income, he could only "afford" treatments that were completely covered by the NHS.
Once he got back to Libya, the Qaddhafi regime was happy to pay for lavish medical care for al Megrahi -- although it was much more stingy when it came to other citizens' medical needs.
Obamacare will absolutely not make chemotherapy unavailable in the U.S. It will make sure that the poor have guaranteed access to some basic medical care, however. You worry that people won't have access to chemo under Obamacare, but there are tons of people that don't have access to chemo now -- they can't afford it!
Hi Dick-- I think that you, and the WSJ editors, are quite wrong on this. The obvious lesson to draw is that better health outcomes are obtainable if the cost of health care is no issue. I'm sure that those standard chemo treatments are readily available in Scotland; they're just not covered by the NHS. Al Megrahi likely could have afforded chemo in Scotland had been a normal citizen. Because he was, in fact, a jailed criminal with no income, he could only "afford" treatments that were fully covered by the NHS.
Once he got back to Libya, the Qaddhafi regime was happy to pay for lavish treatment for al Megrahi -- although it was a bit more stingy with his fellow citizens.
Obamacare will certainly not make chemo unavailable in the U.S., but it will guarantee that the poor have access to basic healthcare. You worry that people won't be able to get advanced treatment under Obamacare, but there are tons of people that can't get any treatment now -- they can't afford it!
Post a Comment