Why do opponents of taxpayer-funded healthcare find it necessary to lie?

[Zan de Man]

Published: February 06, 2010 07:50 am
Traverse City Record Eagle
Fact Check: Koop's claims are not true

By FactCheck.org

The 93-year-old former surgeon general claims seniors would be 'too old' in the United Kingdom to get a pacemaker or joint replacement. He's wrong.

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop claims that the United Kingdom's health care system would consider seniors "too old" to qualify for the artificial joints, heart pacemakers and coronary stent that he's received in the U.S.

U.K. guidelines make clear that patients of "any age" may receive pacemakers, for example. And in fact, official statistics show 47 patients aged 100 or older got new or replacement pacemakers in a single recent year.

Koop, who held office during the Reagan administration, makes his false claim in a TV spot by the conservative 60 Plus Association. We asked 60 Plus to substantiate the claim but received nothing that backs up what Koop said about joints, stents or pacemakers being denied based on age. A spokeswoman for the U.K.'s Department of Health states that Koop's assertions are "not true."

Analysis
The ad is part of a national cable media buy of $400,000, according to the 60 Plus Association.
60 Plus Association Ad: "Dr. Koop"

Announcer: Dr. C. Everett Koop was a pioneering pediatric surgeon, and a renowned surgeon general.

Dr. Koop: I'm 93 and thank God for every year. I'm here with two artificial joints, two pacemakers to keep my heart in rhythm, as well as a stent to keep my coronaries open. Seniors in this country can get the same care I received, but in some places, like the United Kingdom, we would be considered too old and the cost to the state too high.

It is vital that America's seniors understand what Congress is doing. But Democrats are working on a health care bill -- and keeping the discussions and specifics secret. We seniors are concerned about proposals that would reduce Medicare spending. The administration promised transparent deliberation, which has not been forthcoming. America deserves better than this.

Announcer: Call Congress and tell them to start over and get health care right.
Hip Replacements Only for the Young?

Do our neighbors across the Atlantic really deny artificial joints and heart procedures for seniors? No. In fact, statistics show that the United Kingdom's system provides pacemakers to those who are even older than Koop.

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has posted treatment guidelines online that state "pacemakers may be implanted in patients of any age." A more detailed report for 2007 from the National Health Service (the most recent year for which records are available) said that the average age of recipients of new implants was 75.5 years. Nearly 76 percent of the 36,297 pacemaker recipients that year were aged 70 and older, the report said, and 47 patients were 100 years old or more.

As for joint replacements, a spokesman for the U.K. National Joint Registry told us that there was no age limit for surgery and that he "was not aware of anyone being declined" for joint replacement surgery on account of age. The joint registry didn't have statistics based on age, but it counted 100,786 hip and knee operations at National Health Service hospitals in 2009.

We sought out an anti-ageism nonprofit group in the U.K., Age Concern and Help the Aged. We figured that if there is any substance to Koop's complaint of joint replacements being denied to those who are "too old," then this organization would be the first to support it. The group didn't. Instead, Age Concern's press office pointed us to government statistics stating that "the over 65-year age group accounts for two in every three" hip replacements performed in the U.K.

Koop's reference to his heart stent is reminiscent of an anonymous chain e-mail we debunked last summer. The e-mail falsely claimed that anyone older than 59 could not receive heart bypass surgery or stents in England because the procedures were "too costly."

A U.K Department of Health spokesman flatly told us that "it is not true that anyone aged over 59 years cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass surgery on the basis of their age."

The spokesman added: "The NHS Constitution states that the NHS provides a 'comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief.' "

We couldn't track down specific numbers on the age of patients who have received stents, but when we looked into this claim months ago, Age Concern's press office told us the group had never heard of a prohibition on heart surgery for patients aged 60 and up.

This time, we sent a copy of the Koop ad to U.K. Department of Health Press Officer Julia Harris to ask about his claims. "The Department of Health can confirm that this is not true," she said. "Access to treatment should be offered on the basis of clinical need."

No Support for Claims
When we asked the 60 Plus Association for backup for the ad's claims, a spokesman did not send us anything about the three medical treatments Koop mentioned or age limits on such procedures. Rather, the group pointed to three clippings that have nothing to do with its claim:

-- A newspaper story about a U.K. government report on abuses at nursing homes.

-- A newspaper story about some doctors in England expressing concern about a hospice approach that allows doctors and caregivers to focus on comfort instead of life preservation at the end of life.

-- A 2006 newspaper story about a then-new bone cancer drug, Velcade, that was not approved for use in England (though it was available in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) because of a concern over cost and effectiveness. However, the drug was approved a year later.

The group also supplied a Wall Street Journal editorial from last summer claiming that Britain's medical guidelines hold that "except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months."

When we asked officials at the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) about the Journal's editorial, they referred us to a statement issued a few weeks later by Chief Executive Andrew Dillon, calling such reports "untrue or misinformed" and adding: "We don't put a limit on the amount the NHS can spend on an individual patient."

NICE does have a formula used to assess whether or not a new drug or medical device is worth the cost.

But it's not a simple spending cap. And once a treatment is found to be cost-effective, it is available to all patients regardless of age.

-- By Justin Bank, with Lori Robertson

[CatWoman]

Why do these conservatives want to dis the NHS at every opportunity? The NHS isn't perfect and a lot can be improved I wouldn't swap it for the US system not for all the tea in China.

[potter]

Originally Posted by CatWoman

Why do these conservatives want to dis the NHS at every opportunity? The NHS isn't perfect and a lot can be improved I wouldn't swap it for the US system not for all the tea in China.

Because it's a claim that cannot be easily verified by rank and file republicans in the US so it'll stand as God's truth..

[suedanim]

Originally Posted by potter

Because it's a claim that cannot be easily verified by rank and file republicans in the US so it'll stand as God's truth..

And because political opponents are working hard for the medical insurance industry who will have to make radical changes in how and who they cover and at what cost, which will hit them, not a little, in the pockets. The rest of the medical industry, from equipment manufacturers to pharmaceuticals will be forced to charge actual costs more with less high profit gouging of the little man... us and medical insurers, especially government insurers.

[Sir Digalot]

Heard on the radio this morning, about someone whining that they do not want to pay for crack heads and drug addicts on a public system..

it is sad to note that they do not know their current system and already DO pay for those people... through their premiums etc AND taxes AND gov subsidies and loopholes for insurance co's

then there were the people in the senate that where whining about governemnt funded abortions....

people will happily vote for change... if it means everything stays the same

[sinterest]

Because the truth betrays their motives.

[MississippiMud]

Beats me why they lie. The truth is enough for any sane person to say no way

[Zan de Man]

You reckon?

[clownboy]

For the same reasons proponents do.

[Sir Digalot]

Originally Posted by MississippiMud

Beats me why they lie. The truth is enough for any sane person to say no way

care to back that up with some fact?

[Zan de Man]

That would be nice.

[MississippiMud]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

care to back that up with some fact?

your facts or my facts, don't much matter

I will give you my observations

Given the current state of ineptitude of the US government only an idiot would favor turning over an industry as vast and important as health care to said entity. Add to that, the plan they have now will not even marginally cover the problems they claim to want to solve.

Gosh, makes a man wonder just what it is they do wish to accomplish.

I heard this line during the Clinton administration... "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till you see how expensive it is when its free."

[Michael Asher]

Originally Posted by MississippiMud

your facts or my facts, don't much matter

I will give you my observations

Given the current state of ineptitude of the US government only an idiot would favor turning over an industry as vast and important as health care to said entity. Add to that, the plan they have now will not even marginally cover the problems they claim to want to solve.

Gosh, makes a man wonder just what it is they do wish to accomplish.

I heard this line during the Clinton administration... "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till you see how expensive it is when its free."

So, what is it about the "fantastic american government" that will fuck up health care so much more than every other industrialized country that has health care costs for so much less than the USA?

You know, that FREEDOM and LIBERTY government?

[MississippiMud]

Originally Posted by Michael Asher

So, what is it about the "fantastic american government" that will fuck up health care so much more than every other industrialized country that has health care costs for so much less than the USA?

You know, that FREEDOM and LIBERTY government?

Sounds like we are talking about different USA's

[Zan de Man]

So you think Medicare and the Veterans' Administration should be privatised? The police and fire departments? The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

[MississippiMud]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

So you think Medicare and the Veterans' Administration should be privatised? The police and fire departments? The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

Is that what they call a straw man point of view? Im not real up on fancy terms.

Since you fall to an all or nothing point of view I take it you have nothing left.

[Zan de Man]

No. It isn't. It's what they call a counter-argument. You contend that the US government can't be trusted to run anything. I'm asking if you'd prefer it if the public sector gave up running the military, the police, the fire department, Medicare and the Veterans' Administration. I hope that's straightforward enough for you. Wouldn't want to be fancy. No sir.

[MississippiMud]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

No. It isn't. It's what they call a counter-argument. You contend that the US government can't be trusted to run anything. I'm asking if you'd prefer it if the public sector gave up running the military, the police, the fire department, Medicare and the Veterans' Administration. I hope that's straightforward enough for you. Wouldn't want to be fancy. No sir.

And I sure do appreciate your non fanciness Zan. The topic here is government health care. To bring in these other social services is a distraction that is not necessary.

We could look into relieving Government of those duties at some point. To be honest I have not put much thought into that. We all know there is a lot of room for improvement in most of those services.

To just willy nilly dismantle them? O hell no. Im not goofy enough to cut off an arm to save a finger.

What i do oppose is handing over more opportunities for fraud/thievery/failure and incompetence. Lets fix the root cause and have a clear separation of the private and public sectors and return to a government that truly is of/for/by the people.

[Zan de Man]

So the government runs these services and they just need a bit of improvement, but if they took on healthcare it would be a disaster? Why would healthcare be so different?

[clownboy]

Just a reminder, here in the US, the police and fire services are typically run by state and local government, not the feds. Medicare and the VA are largely run and delivered by private enterprise, state and local government, but regulated and partially paid for by the feds. Neither is a model of wonderful goodness that we'd all like to emulate.