Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cancer survival rates vary by country, within country, race and socio-economic status.
The chance of Cancer, regardless of country, increases by age. Those 65-75 are at greatest risk. Most who are diagnosed with Cancer in the U.S. are on Medicare, the closest thing the U.S. has to universal healthcare.
The infamous 2008 study of survival rates by country is not an apples to apples comparison. Specifically, for the U.S., it tracks the period of 1999-2006. The European nations were tracked for the period of 1995-99.
See table #5 for a more detailed breakdown by types of Cancer and a larger assortment of nations.
Why don't you try to fix the root causes --- those things which cause your healthcare to cost more --- before making people pay for it?
I am all for fixing the root causes, but we can't get there until you comprehend the basics, which you obviously don't.
Quote:
How bigoted is it to claim you prefer one thing over another, when you've had
no experience with the other?
I have had personal experience with both systems, but I have not said I prefer one over the other. I simply said Europeans support their system, while Americans are deeply divided over our system. I think everyone in US agrees our system is broken, but we can't agree on how to fix it.
Quote:
Why don't you try fixing the systemic problems in your healthcare system, before levying a tax on everyone?
We have been trying to fix them for decades, and even ACA was yet another effort to fix them, but so far we have not managed to fix them, and knowing the government of full of partisan hacks, I don't expect the problems to be fixed any time soon.
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
This is great! Assuming that the underlying need for dialysis is somewhat similar across the three countries, in the UK and Canada, for more than 50% of candidates, Canada and the UK use the alternative treatment to dialysis: the funeral.
While dialysis is expensive and ongoing, funerals are cheap with just a one-time charge. Dialysis patients draw pensions or old age benefits or social security; cemetery residents draw nothing. So the UK and Canadian method saves money two ways.
Since I myself would never consent to dialysis treatment, the UK and Canadian method suits me a lot better. But we're going to need some pretty sturdy death panels or something to counteract all the whiny people who are gonna want to stay out of the cemetery. Then we'll have more money for beer and twinkies and smartphones. Everybody wins.
Mircea - you give me a headache. You dismissed my last post without answering my question.
I'm the OP....I'm not obligated to respond to off-topic stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave
Why are there so many threads about American Healthcare, and so few in the UK thread about the NHS? I was in America only a week ago. I watched Fox so called news making fun of Obamacare.... commentators literally laughing. Everytime I saw this channel during my two weeks visit, they were hammering Obamacare.
Why do you think this is?
I don't know....I don't have a TV here, and I stopped watching US network news in the 1990s.
I get my news....if I want news....from Romanian, British, German and Russian sources, and occasionally Serbian or French news sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave
How about vested interests like insurance companies making sure things carry on in the same old way. Many of us think profiteering on the backs of ill people is distasteful.
You just proved the premise of the OP.
Please cite any law that enacted by the federal or State governments in the US that benefits "insurance companies."
Health insurance companies do not set the prices of healthcare services.
Please explain which part of that statement you do not understand.
American Hospital Assn
HEAVY HITTER The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems.
View totals for other cycles:
CONTRIBUTIONS
$2,383,767 ranks 137 of 20,981
LOBBYING
$19,251,200 (2012)
$20,823,341 (2011) ranks 5 of 4,368 in 2012
OUTSIDE SPENDING
$1,912,675 ranks 47 of 296
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
Insurance companies are not responsible for the current mess, but the American Hospital Association is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave
How about you producing a graph showing people in England wanting rid of the NHS for something different?
I will be more than happy and willing to do that.....get the British government to give me control over all of the counties south of London, and I will set up a private healthcare system and having experienced it Brits would never go back to the NHS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave
You dismiss someone like me who has seen the NHS in action for many years.
And I can dismiss you so easily, because you are ignorant of the evolution of the healthcare system in the US; you are biased and prejudiced for your own system; you are bigoted....falsely believing your system is the bomb, when it really isn't; and because you've never provided a single shred of evidence, and because you still haven't addressed this...
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States
Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.
Requires each employer to make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee.
Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose excise taxes on failures by employers and insurers to comply with provisions of this Act.
I'm retired since '04' thank you, and was never unemployed from the age of 15.
I guess you missed the part about "aid and assisting human health" eh?
No one said healthcare providers should work for free and do you suppose all of those folks working in the healthcare field in countries with Universal Health care are working for free?
And no one has said that they oppose universal healthcare because it's not profitable. You made that horsesh-t up because it makes you feel like good about yourself to be able to say "look at me, I care and you don't!"
The vast majority of us do not profit from the medical or insurance field whatsoever.
Quote:
The fact my little missive went right on over your head does not surprise me one bit.
That's because it was an unhinged fabrication.
Quote:
What is it about the concept of ALL sharing a proportionate cost to guarantee ALL the basics of effective healthcare is beyond your intellectual grasp?
The concept of all sharing a proportionate cost is a farce. Half of us will share 99% of the costs while the other half will share 1%, that's that way it is with everything the government gets involved in. This is not how a society should function.
Quote:
Hypocritical is a nation supposedly founded upon Christian principles that fosters the 'every man for himself' ethic to the degree that yours does on this issue.
You don't have the moral currency to presume to lecture on the grounds of hyprocacy.
Well, seeing as we Americans have surpassed you in pretty much every arena that man has endeavored, maybe the every man for himself ethos works.
BTW, here's another endeavor that we have exceeded your nation in:
Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States
Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.
Requires each employer to make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee.
Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.
and much more....
Oh dear, the cons on this forum usually try to evade these inconvenient facts. Usually they opt for the "no Republicans voted for it" ploy, pretending that all of the facts you just posted are non-existent and the ACA vote is some kind of lone event completely unrelated to the rest of US history.
Should be interesting to see how the conversation goes now that you've made that post here
Mircea, you talk about deflection, yet you completely fail to address any points.
Which part of "OP" do you not understand? I'm not obligated to address baseless off-topic remarks intended to deflect and derail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Why do you talk about deaths in hospital rather than avoidable deaths in hospital?
Because deaths in hospital are on-topic, while avoidable deaths are off-topic.
It's called "Economics."
There is a very clear difference between medical staff making avoidable errors....and people dying because there is insufficient Capital in the form of cash, credit, Labor (medical personnel), space, facilities, equipment, medical supplies and other medical resources which necessitates the denial of treatment, the delaying of treatment or the dilution of the treatment to the point of being ineffective resulting in death.
The reason the there is insufficient Capital, is because a government --- like the British government --- does not collect enough money in revenues to pay for the Capital.
Which once again proves that spending less does not equal costing less.
If you cannot recognize or understand the differences, then no one can help you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Even if your stats were accurate, your own links state the UK are among the worst performers in this area. Why do you insist on comparing America to what you say is the worst performer? Wold being second worst in the world be such an accomplishment?
Once again, you have failed to address the OP.
Healthcare in America is expensive.....why?
It has nothing to do with insurance companies.
The only people who continue to insist insurance companies are the reason are the ones disconnected from reality, and who selfishly focus on how much healthcare costs personally affects them, instead of being truly "altruistic" and taking efforts to identify those issues that cause the prices of healthcare services to increase, which then causes the price of health plan coverage to increase.
Stated in another way.....your attempt to reduce the cost of health plan coverage will not in anyway reduce the cost of healthcare services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Why do you insist on pretending the ACA is moving the US towards UK style healthcare rather than away from it?
The issues are Economics: Capital, Supply & Demand, Opportunity Costs, Economies of Scale and so on.
Spending less is not the same as costing less.
Read....
2012 Medicare Trustees Report Page 2
The Trustees believe that this outcome, while plausible, will depend on the achievement of unprecedented improvements in health care provider productivity. If the health sector could not transition to more efficient models of care delivery and achieve productivity increases commensurate with economy-wide productivity, and if the provider reimbursement rates paid by commercial insurers continued to follow the same negotiated process used to date, then the availability and quality of health care received by Medicare beneficiaries relative to that received by those with private health insurance would fall over time, generating pressure to modify Medicare’s payment rates.
[underline and bold emphasis mine]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Why do you use reports you know to be fake?
I have no evidence they are fake.
When someone can show me a link or give me a source, then I will review the information. This is not the first time we've had that discussion. It works like this.....
1] I post data on life-expectancy explaining how metrics impacts the interpretation of data, and post data from a study sponsored by the United States Center for Disease Control, the British NHS, and the Journal of the American Medical Association
2] You claim both charts are false data.
3] I ask you for sources, and you run away and never respond.
Would you like me to dredge up links to past threads where that happened?
I will continue to use those charts, until you provide a source that I can review and evaluate.
Until then....
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
