Yeah, this looks great For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent in USA, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England
DFWag your link wants me to register. can you summarize it? If anyone doesn't believe your summary they can register. I trust you. I can't wait to hear the Dems explanation for this, that USaA survival rates for cancer are so much higher than in countries with national healthcare plans.
Wierd. If you click through from google then you by-pass the registration. Here is the text I thought was interesting. In reply to:
there's no doubt we have the best cancer treatment in the world. is that the sole metric with which to measure a healthcare system? and what true cost are we paying for the best cancer treatment in the world? many would argue that we are merely subsidizing the world's care in many of these areas and we cannot afford to do that any longer. we all want the best cancer treatment we all want the best primary care we all want the best surgeons we all want the best hospitals none of us want to pay the true price for what all of that would cost (not Ds, not Rs, not me, not you...not anyone really)
it's because you cant get in to see a specialist when u need to in those countries and why the wealthy that can afford it come here for treatment. it is a concept the pushers of this program do not understand. they do not want to hear that overall healthcare quality will go down or they do know it and dont care because they do not think it is fair for a majority of americans to receive excellent healthcare while the illegals do not.
general the other salient point is the people who will vote to ration health care for Americans will not be subjected to that rationing . IF those voting for this would agree to give up what they and their staff have and sign on to receive same care that might carry some weight. OK if cancer survival rates are not the only measure, what would be other important measures and how does the USA stack up in cardiac incidents? I bet cancer and heart issues are the 2 biggest health issues. How does out current health care stack up?
You know the more I see of these alarming posts the more I think the plan of simply letting your healthcare premiums double every 7 or so years sounds like a really good deal! Too bad we are going ot have a **** load of old people that have been prmoised medical care and the GOP has blocked healthcare reform of most any variety for the last 25 years. Actually that's not completely correct the GOP did vote to cut reimbursments for doctors, and creat a windfall for the Pharma industry with their Medicare Part D program that was passed by a single vote in the house as I recall.
We are talking about surival rates yes. Do these rates breakdown by age? The article did mention that Americans live shorter lives than other countries. Not sure if I am reading this article correctly. The statistics do not have any references to where they came from.
Wow, look at the list of "socialized medicine" countries that have a longer average lifespan than the United States: Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Licthenstein etc... The Link You see, I can draw false analogies as well as anybody on this BBS!
The longer lifespans have more to do with cultural differences. Much like low CAD in Japan. The cancer survival and RA progression rates, though, are closely related to actual HC system function (search the literature if you like). One could advance the argument that the HC system is responsible for molding the social environment in a way that generates community-wide health apart from actual HC encounters. I personally think, though, that attempting to modify American culture to conform to Japanese and European standards is both unlikely to succeed and outside the scope of the government's rightful authority. For the latter, I have the Constitution of the US as exhibit A. To me, the principal test we should apply to sweeping new federal programs is whether they comply with our principles. Socialized medicine's postulated inferior future in dealing with neoplastic disease should not be the deciding factor. Conformity to the Constitution and the notion that we all have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness should be the criteria.
Oh, and for the record, many of you have been using the word "preventative" when I think you meant "preventive." Both are words relating to HC, but they have distinct meanings.
are they really different or do many people just use preventative (which is not really a word but a mutated form of preventive) when the correct word is preventive? in other words, is there a difference between preventive and preventative medicine?
Both are words. Language is fluid so based on widespread misuse of "preventative" to mean "preventive," it will ultimately mean the same. Traditionally, however, a preventative is a medicine taken as a preventive measure. Does that help?
thanks kgp, that helps. i just wanted to make sure there weren't two wholly disconnected ideas in the medical community. i would then feel very stupid using the wrong word. now i just feel moderately stupid for using the wrong word.
If conservatives want to keep costs down, why not go to a rationing system? Health care is rationed as it is since supply is limited and demand mostly unlimited. But it's rationed currently by ability to pay instead of merit. Is that any less cruel than the "nightmare" rationing described by opponents of socialized medicine? Isn't rationing a form of cost-benefit analysis that conservatives love to apply to public policy?
