Taxing profits is tantamount to taxing success. -- Ludwig von Mises

Blog Home

NTU Home Page

Blog FAQs

About "Government Bytes!"

Support NTU

Sign up with NTU's Taxpayer Action Center

Blog Contributors
Andrew Moylan
Director of Government Affairs

Dan Barrett
Policy Analyst

David Keating
Senior Counselor

Demian Brady
Senior Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Terrell
Guest Blogger

Jeff Dircksen
Director of Congressional Analysis

Jordan Forbes
Federal Government Affairs Manager

Joshua Culling
State Government Affairs Manager

Kristina Rasmussen
Guest Blogger

Kristine Tuinstra
State Policy Analyst

Government Affairs & Communications Associate

Paul Gessing
Guest Blogger

Pete Sepp
Vice President for Communications

Rachael Slobodien
Communications Manager

Ross Kaminsky

Sam Batkins
Guest Blogger

Tom Horne
Policy Associate

Send to a Friend
Send to Friend
The Official Blog of National Taxpayers Union

Nationalized Medicine Threatens Women's Health

Posted by NTU Gov - June 10, 2009

The fact that the current health care system in America leaves some people uninsured is an accepted one. No one is denying that each year the inability to access medical care results in missed diagnoses and preventable deaths. But nationalizing health care in order to cover all US citizens, á la the plans of the current administration, would only necessitate the rationing of treatment, further reducing the number of patients receiving adequate attention and deteriorating the health status of all Americans, and of women in particular.

The Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott called attention yesterday to the troubling correlation between nationalized health care systems and higher rates of both breast cancer cases and deaths. Quoting Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Tapscott writes that:
“women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe,’ due primarily to the much lower rate of early detection among European cancer patients.
The only effects of nationalizing health care, it seems, would be to raise the age of a woman’s first mammogram, reduce the number of routine screenings she receives throughout her life, and delay the detection of breast cancer beyond the point of easy treatment. How do you justify jeopardizing the health of over 50 percent of the population to expand coverage to the 9 million or so that, according to The Spectator, are those truly uninsured for the long haul? Apparently women’s health doesn’t fall under the category of “universal coverage”.

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

canuche said on Jun 10 2009 at 4:06pm
Interesting figures about mammograms and breast cancer survival rates. Did you look also at the number of women and girls who cannot afford any health care in the US? It's true, we have high survival rates amongst those who are lucky enough to afford health insurance but with those premiums equivalent to 20% of the median household income are we really doing our citizens a service?