Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDC
And yet somehow they still do better than us on several health metrics.
|
One of the things noted by MacDorman and Matthews....
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_02.pdf
....is that if the US adopted the Swedish Metric for births, then the US infant mortality rate would decline 33%.
You lose.
You lose again.
You lose again.
That study was published in Lancet...
Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD) : The Lancet Oncology
The Lancet Oncology,
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages 730 - 756, August 2008
<
Previous Article|
Next Article>
doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70179-7
Cite or Link Using DOI
This article can be found in the following collections:
Global Health;
Oncology (
Cancer epidemiology & prevention & control)
Published Online: 17 July 2008
Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD)
Background
Cancer survival varies widely between countries. The CONCORD study provides survival estimates for 1·9 million adults (aged 15—99 years) diagnosed with a first, primary, invasive cancer of the breast (women), colon, rectum, or prostate during 1990—94 and followed up to 1999, by use of individual tumour records from 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries on five continents. This is, to our knowledge, the first worldwide analysis of cancer survival, with standard quality-control procedures and identical analytic methods for all datasets.
Yes, that's
Lancet --- Britain's version of the prestigious American
JAMA.
Funding: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Department of Health (London, UK), Cancer Research UK (London, UK).
That's your own government, and the British government.
Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.
June E. O'Neill,
Dave M. O'Neill
NBER Working Paper No. 13429
Issued in September 2007
NBER Program(s): HC HE
Does Canada's publicly funded, single payer health care system deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more equitably than the multi-payer heavily private U.S. system? We show that the efficacy of health care systems cannot be usefully evaluated by comparisons of infant mortality and life expectancy. We analyze several alternative measures of health status using JCUSH (The Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health) and other surveys. We find a somewhat higher incidence of chronic health conditions in the U.S. than in Canada but somewhat greater U.S. access to treatment for these conditions. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of U.S. women and men are screened for major forms of cancer. Although health status, measured in various ways is similar in both countries, mortality/incidence ratios for various cancers tend to be higher in Canada. The need to ration resources in Canada, where care is delivered "free", ultimately leads to long waits. In the U.S., costs are more often a source of unmet needs. We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S.
Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.
University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
PSC Working Paper Series Population Studies Center
7-1-2009
Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault?
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/view...0expectancy%22
By the way, the answer to the question is "
No, the US Health Care System is not at Fault."
You lose again.
Shall I continue?
Because I can do this 24/7 for the next 3 months.
Health care in the US is on a par with, or superior to, any of the top 10 States in the world.
You lack of win is disturbing.....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual
It is expected to blame managers who cut costs and reduced staffing levels in an attempt to hit Labour’s ‘efficiency’ targets and win foundation status.
Thats exactly what the Tea Partiers want to do in the US! Implement UK style "austerity" (Cameron is a conservative) and cut hospital and gubmint staff to install the "LET HIM DIE!!!" rule.
|
From....
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
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
So, um, what was the excuse there?
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
The delay between the first hospital visit and starting treatment was 35-187 days (median 94);
Limited access to specialists is the reason most often advanced for the poor performance of the UK in treating lung cancer. 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.
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
Lung cancer treatment waiting tim... [Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
And what was the excuse there?
What about Alice Mahon?
Anyone remember her?
She was a Member of Parliament who had macular degeneration, and she lost the sight in one of her eyes, because while most of the rest of the world had already approved Lucentis, the British NHS balked at the costs and delayed its approval.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
1) I don't know. Doesn't the right wing favor tort reform, to limit your right to sue here?!?!?
2) I was sent home with a catheter bag due to a kidney stone. Was hemorrhaging on the ride home
Get your head out of your ***. There is nothing special about our medical system for the average patient. I had much better treatment in a socialized Toronto Hospital when I fell ill there, than I ever did here.
|
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study
However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study
....but that's probably because they sacrifice people....
...in the name of "whatever" oh, that's right, the "collective good."
One poor woman in Canada died because the first scheduled open-heart surgery was cancelled by the hospital due to lack of space, and then the 2nd schedules surgery was cancelled by the hospital as well, and then she had an heart attack and died waiting for the 3rd scheduled surgery...which probably would have been cancelled too.
Think you would have done better in Canada?
Think again.
Oh, yeah, in case you missed it....
From....
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Try some facts.
|
I just buried you in facts.....all of them disprove your claims about national health care/single-payer.
Factually....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Because the free market works so well here already.
|
You don't have Free Market health care in the US.
You haven't had Free Market health care since 1933 when the American Hospital Association started screwing up your health care system....and no, you cannot blame insurance companies.
Can you purchase $500,000 worth of annual Emergency Room health insurance and nothing else?
No, you cannot......that is proof there is no Free Market.
Free Market means this in no uncertain terms.....
I can buy health insurance for anything I want or nothing at all.
I can buy coverage for doctors office visits only if that is what I want. I can buy coverage for visits to specialists if that is what I want. I can buy insurance that only covers cancer if that's what I want. If I don't want coverage for pregnancy/child-birth, then I do not buy it and I do not pay for it. If I don't want coverage for sexually transmitted diseases, then I do not buy it and do not pay for it. If I don't want coverage for transplants then I do not buy it and do not pay for it.
I can tailor the health insurance package to meet my individual/family needs.
I can tailor my health insurance package to meet my budget.
I can cover anyone under my policy, whether they live under my roof or not, whether they are related to me or not.
I can purchase health insurance anywhere, anytime without going through my employer, but I can still have my employer pay for part or all of my insurance as part of my benefit package.
I can use my health insurance at any hospital or doctor anywhere in the US without being penalized with "Out-of-Network" fees (which were created by whom? No, wrong, not insurance companies the American Hospital Association in 1939).
That, is Free Market health care. It's about Freedom of Choice.
I though you *******s were supposed be all hot and bothered by pro-choice stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
If you're a veteran, current serving member of the military, retired member of the military (as in you put in 20+ years), or Congressman than yes, you have an NHS system of care to avail yourself of.
|
Wrong.
It is true that my primary care doctor is a VA employee and thus a government employee, but the rest of my doctors are not.
This is one of my doctors.....
Our Team | UC Neurotrauma Centerucneurotraumacenter.com
...really cool dude. The last surgery I had I woke up during the surgery near the end and was talking Romanian. He was the only one that understood what I was saying....he's from Argentina, and as long as I'm using Latin verbs and nouns Romanian is mutually intelligible with Spanish.
My other doctors, one is from the Philippines on staff at University Hospital and so is the other, a woman from Brasil.
Anyway, the VA contracts out for specialists and specialty doctors.
One last thing.....
"VA adherence to the DOD 'no exposures' doctrine, often in the face of compelling clinical evidence to the contrary, could be viewed as Department-wide medical malpractice." -- Honorable Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veteran Affairs
[underlined emphasis mine]
Do you understand the "no exposures" doctrine?
The United States Government, via the Department of Defense told the Veteran's Administration that even if you encounter veterans who display clear and convincing medical evidence of exposure to chemical weapons -- including nerve agents --- you will pretend you never saw the evidence and will not report it.
What, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study wasn't horrific enough for you?
Oh, yeah, Doctor Eugene Saenger at Cincinnati General Hospital injecting poor people with lethal doses of radiation.
The most truly awful among them were the experiments that Dr. Eugene L. Saenger ran at Cincinnati General Hospital from 1960 to 1972. He was paid by the Department of Defense and his findings were used by several government agencies. What makes radiation experiments like Saenger’s more horrible than those at Tuskegee is that, in these cases, doctors were not merely watching an already existing disease take its course. Instead Saenger deliberately injected hundreds of people with potentially lethal doses of radiation, knowing that most of them would die rather quick deaths. At least 89 people are acknowledged to have died as a direct result of Saenger’s treatment, although the number is likely well above 200. Dr. Saenger even copped to the crime and openly defended his actions...
[emphasis mine]
I'd bet you'd be tripping all over yourself to hire doctors like Saenger.
So, um, what wrong-doing did NAZI Doctor Mengele do?
What Saenger (and other American doctors did) makes Doctor Mengele look like Marcus Welby MD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Also, one can and many do, purchase private health insurance coverage in the UK.
|
Correcting you disinformation as always....
Exemptions for health insurance in the United Kingdom:
Pre-existing conditions, GP services, accident and emergency admission,
long-term chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma, drug abuse, self-inflicted injuries, outpatient drugs and dressings,
HIV/AIDS, infertility, normal pregnancy and child birth, cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment, preventive treatment, kidney dialysis, mobility aids, experimental treatment and drugs, organ
transplants, war risks and injuries arising from hazardous pursuits
Source: World Health Organization European Observer on Health Care Systems and Policies
You all need to get your act together.
Sourcing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
That's funny...my liberal ex-girlfriend couldn't wait to get home from Britain to receive proper care when she broke her arm abroad.
|
To bad Englishwoman Mavis Skeet couldn't come to America. She had cancer surgery scheduled four freaking times, and each and every time it was cancelled due to lack of funding or lack of space.
Then, surprise, surprise, her cancer become inoperable.
That's how the NHS does it....
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit
The NHS either out-right denies you treatment, or they delay your treatment until nothing can be done, or the give you diluted treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Typical response I would have expected. Deny, deflect, delusional.
|
Sort of like the NHS, only different.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
These morons are willing to accept anything, including a national health care system managed by 3 large prawns and a blind dog, just so they can say they have one, because they're stupid enough to think it will be "Freeeeeee!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
But I don't know what the US has to do with NHS? We're talking about NHS in this thread.
|
Well, they like to deflect from the truth.
I'm sure someone will bring up the Beatles' concert at Shea Stadium to deflect and dodge the facts I posted.
Summarily...
Mircea
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.
