August 22, 2007

Health Care > Cancer Survival Rates - USA! USA!

tele.jpg

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack



Comments

I don't see Canada on that list...

Posted by: Alcibiades at August 22, 2007

There's obviously been a mistake. Cuba should be way higher up on the list then we are. They're healthcare is system is second to none.[/moore-on]

Posted by: Bruce at August 22, 2007

That proves that strong government investment in research and education pays off. We definitely have the best education system in the world, or we did during the period relevant to the doctors and researchers responsible for that figure.

This data is five years old. I wonder how it will change as the trends of lower job security and cherry picking by insurers manifest.

Posted by: persimmon at August 22, 2007

The Chimperor has obviously ordered that the data be fudged at the behest of his puppet master, Darth Rove.

Posted by: Tam at August 23, 2007

Persimmon clearly thinks that government involvement is a good thing even tho these figures show that the country with the least government involvement in health care has the highest survival rate.

Posted by: triticale at August 23, 2007

The U.S. is not the country on the list with "the least government involvement;" it is the one with the most government involvement in education and research. Our cancer treatment success is high because our doctors are well trained with good access to research and research institutions. There is considerable public support of both, and it has been well worth the investment.

Posted by: persimmon at August 24, 2007

From Les's previous post;

"CANCER patients are still waiting up to seven months for treatment."

I wonder if the wait has anything to do with it?

I wonder why socialized medicine seems to make patients wait so long?

Oh, wait, that's the great promise of socialized care, innit? It's ALWAYS touted as being the great equalizer since it supposedly increases the availability of care.

Certainly doesn't seem so, now does it?

Posted by: theirritablearchitect at August 24, 2007

I wonder when the legendary "can do" spirit of America will be applied to the problem of how to repair a health care system that neglects a significant portion of the country, whether because of price or deliberate exclusion.

Posted by: persimmon at August 26, 2007

"whether because of price or deliberate exclusion"

Utter non-sense, and I am sure you don't even realize why.

Posted by: theirritablearchitect at August 26, 2007

Utter non-sense, and I am sure you don't even realize why.

No doubt. How could I?

Posted by: persimmon at August 27, 2007

Hint = "deliberate exclusion"

Another hint = CANCER patients are still waiting up to seven months for treatment (in Canada)

2+2=?

Sounds pretty "deliberate" to me.

Posted by: -B at August 27, 2007

Oh, and the government has jack to do with the "involvement" in education in the field of medicine. That is something that can only be undertaken by individuals.

Posted by: -B at August 27, 2007

By "deliberate exclusion," I mean people who can not purchase insurance at any price. This is a growing problem. People with health insurance get sick, get some treatment, then they lose their job either because of missed work while sick or because their illness bumps premiums and their employer finds some excuse to shed them. If they can get insured at all after that, their existing condition is excluded or the cost is prohibitive (they just lost their job, after all).

Health insurance tied to employment was okay when people got hired by a company and worked there all their life. Our economy no longer works that way. Between employers abandoning employees and insurers excluding high-risk clients, many people are being deliberately excluded from the health care system.

If you walk into an emergency room with cancer and no insurance, they don't treat you, they just stabilize your pain. People in that situation would happily wait 7 months for surgery since the alternative is never getting it. Those people are in the 37 percent that does not survive 5 years, and I'm sure that number has grown since 2002.

Regarding education, the government has helped create many colleges and universities, funds many students through scholarships and low cost loans, funds a lot of research through grants and, of course, provides the K-12 education upon which it is all built. Obviously they short changed you, though, so I can see why you're so bitter.

Posted by: persimmon at August 27, 2007

Your explanation makes no sense.

"Health insurance tied to employment was okay when people got hired by a company and worked there all their life. Our economy no longer works that way."

This may be true, and I can clue you in as to why this is the case; Tort law.

Your insistance that governmental intrusion into this fiasco is, in any way, going to "fix" this nightmare is nothing short of naive.

Drop it, get a clue, and worry about providing for YOU, and let everyone else take care of themselves, while actively PREVENTING the .GOV from sticking its meathooks into it, will ya!

Posted by: -B at August 29, 2007

"Obviously they short changed you, though, so I can see why you're so bitter."

Not nearly as short changed as you are, and if I find you, you'll care enough to regret that remark.

Posted by: -B at August 29, 2007

if I find you, you'll care enough to regret that remark

Awww, poor baby. Are you going to make me regret it by delivering a ponderous lecture on tort reform or by being physically abusive?

Posted by: persimmon at August 30, 2007

Whoa. Let's keep it civil. It's just ones and zeroes, folks.

Posted by: Les Jones at August 30, 2007

this chart is absolutely not trustworthy because it doesn't say how many patients are actually treated. The number of cancer diagnosed patients who are denied treatment (due to lack of insurance)is an unknown figure, while in France, for example, 100% patients diagnosed are treated. You can't compare apples and bananas. And by the way, where is France in the chart. Don't tell me they don't have figures. How convenient... And Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet (who published this chart) has previously been involved in many controversies, starting with the death-toll of Iraqis, but also over the role of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine, the MMR vaccine, the ethics of medical publishing, and global health. That wouldn't be the first time The Lancet would use faulted methods in their stats calculations.

Posted by: chris at September 03, 2007
Post a comment










Remember personal info?







Terms of Use