Skip to comments.Cancer Survival Rates Highest in US
Posted on 08/24/2007 3:28:38 AM PDT by abc123alphabetagamma
Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.
European cancer survival rates
England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.
Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Paging Hillary Clinton....
That won’t last long if Hill gets anywhere near the WH again.
Don’t worry. As soon as Americans get what they want and have “the government” pay for their “healthcare”, those cancer survival rates will go down.
More likely it was the result of rationing. Long waiting lists are one manifestation of rationing. Another is being told to go home and die because your prospects are too poor to justify the expenditure of precious, precious government money.
This can’t be right. I’m sure the NYTimes, Olberman, DU, KOS and others will leap to denounce this awful news which shows that the US isn’t the absolute worst in the world about something.
We apologize to the rest of the world for better at fighting diseases and promise never to do it again. /sarc
In other words: socialized medicine.
As far as the Government is concerned, the lower the cancer survival rate, the better.
Cancer survivors consume far more than their share of health benefits, are less productive, on average, than other people their age, and live on to consume government pensions and entitlements. It is far better, from the government’s point of view, if they just die quickly and quietly, so all that money can be saved.
Too bad Cuba didn’t make it to the list. LOL.
Also France “figures not aviable” speaks volumes.
There is no doubt in my mind that I would not have survived cancer in Canada or the UK. The waits and rationing are deadly to the patients. And I see a lot of welfare cases at the same hospital getting the same excellent care.
My advise to those who wish for socialized medicine..move to Canada.
ping for later.
This is a disaster. Longer survival rates mean more food consumption, more driving, more home heating and cooling, more flatulence, more exhaling of CO2, more of everything that’s gonna cause the world to burn to a cinder.
Once again, America has no heart and no regard for what’s in the best interests of the planet.
Oh, woe is us.
Well ... yeah ... but ... health care is free in Cuba.
Bet Fidel wishes he was here right about now.
Canada did even make the list?
I’m dying to know where Canada came in, no pun intended.
This can’t be. We need bigger governmnet now. We are also not winning the war!!!!!!!! /sarcasm
I'm dying to know where Canada came in, no pun intended.
Hmm, Canada isn't even on the list? Is that because
pharaceuticals -> pharmaceuticals
It is a supreme irony that government reaches out to control health and insurance and then proceeds to harass us all over how much we cost.
Try again. The US doesn’t develop the drugs, companies do. Make their lives hard and they move to Slovenia.
I think we need to bring about socialized medicine to, you know, even the playing field.
I didn't say make their lives harder. I was just pointing out that most of the rest of the world are a bunch of free riders and the American consumers are the only ones left to pull the wagon uphill. If we stop pulling and jump in for a ride along with everyone else (by implementing Hillary's socialized medicine), the wagon will at best stop, but will more likely start rolling backwards for the entire world.
And if Slovenia can pick up the tab for tens of billions of dollars of drug development, they are more than welcome to.
They don’t have to pick up the tab. All they have to do is leave the companies alone. The rest I agree with.
“Dont worry. As soon as Americans get what they want and have the government pay for their healthcare, those cancer survival rates will go down.”
And so won’t bankruptcies.....
Sorry, but I was talking to a friend who lives in New Brunswick (Canada) last night. He says the last thing his family has to worry about is losing everything because they got sick! He knows of no one who would trade their healthcare system for the expensive preditory (his words) system we have here. Seems we always bad mouth the Canadian system but I’ve yet to find a Canadian who doesn’t like it. Incoming!!!
Every Canadian loves their system, until they get seriously ill.
Their system is designed to treat sniffles and bruised shins, for free.
When a Canadian (or anyone in a similar system) comes down with a serious illness, they get put on a waiting list and die, thus avoiding the cost of acute care.
Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.More likely it was the result of rationing. Long waiting lists are one manifestation of rationing. Another is being told to go home and die because your prospects are too poor to justify the expenditure of precious, precious government money.
Socialized medicine is, as you note, sold as economical medicine and delivered as cheap medicine. Socialized medicine advocates always talk about "quality health care," but - as Tom Peters long ago pointed out - "If you are not trying to improve, you are not staying where you are - you are getting worse." So the institution of socialized medicine is the death knell not merely for the increase in medical quality but even for medical quality at the present level.
And what does it mean even to stop the progress of medical quality? When my mother was the age my daughter is now, she had a kidney removed. The incision scar ran almost halfway around her body, and the recovery from the incision was difficult and painful. Today the removal of a kidney would be a laproscopic procedure doing, in comparison, almost no collateral damage to the abdomen. Indeed, such a patient might be out the door of the hospital in a day.
When my daughter's granddaughter is the age my daughter is now, will she look back to the early 2000's and pity the people who had to be content with the quality of medical care now available to us? Or will she have "Quality health care," and envy us for our superior health care? Heaven forfend such a betrayal of the promise to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Canadians have a safety valve built into their health care system.It's called the USA.When they're told that they have to wait six months for a cancer specialist to check that lump they hop in their car and have it examined within days at a hospital in NY,or MI,or MN or WA.
Once Hillary! sees to it that that option is closed off to Canadians they'll start rioting in the streets...if they can find the strength to do so.
What’s scary is the high percentage of people who have to file banruptcy because of medical bills AND they had health insurance!!
It’s out of control......
I’ll trade bankruptcy for living longer with cancer, thank you.
I hope you don’t have to do either!
A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States
Background: Differences in medical care in the United States compared with Canada, including greater reliance on private funding and for-profit delivery, as well as markedly higher expenditures, may result in different health outcomes.
Methods: We identified studies comparing health outcomes of patients in Canada and the United States by searching ultiple bibliographic databases and resources.
We masked study results before determining study eligibility. We abstracted study characteristics, including methodological quality and generalizability.
Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada . The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.
Canadian outcomes appear superior in head and neck cancer, and possibly for low-income patients with a variety of cancers; American women with breast cancer appear to have better survival rates than Canadian women.
Canadian health care has many well-publicized limitations. Nevertheless, it produces health benefits similar, or perhaps superior, to those of the US health system
A little light FReading: