[Sdiff]

http://riffenberg.wordpress.com/2009...urvival-rates/

The only private healthcare system in the developed world is also best at saving lives

So what is this, if not a vindication of the free marketeers? "Curing cancer" is often seen as one of "society"'s fundamental goals today. Yet it seems as if private companies in the USA are making quite good progress on that without the need for government interference. As you can see, Britain's healthcare is performing terribly. Similar poor performance is noted in other countries with socialised healthcare.

This is not a matter of greedy capitalists and money: millions of people die, who would otherwise survive if they were in a privatised healthcare system.

Many people say "America is great, but it won't be so pretty when you find yourself in need in healthcare"

Really? Looking at this chart, America looks like a nice place to get sick. I do value my life after all!

And before you talk about the cost: Americans spend a lot on healthcare because I) They are not particularly healthy and ii) they spend a lot on cosmetics. two factors completely unrelated to private vs socialised. Regardless, I don't think you will be too concerned about cost if it's your life that's going to be saved.

So what do you say. Is it time to question the NHS, the holy grail which was rushed in at a time of national turbulence?

[cl_steele]

My dad had cancer and was treated by the NHS and survived just fine ... plus what do you know, it was free ... so i think i'll stick with the NHS over the over-priced American style healthcare system any day..

[Norton1]

Think you've mixed up your holy grail with your sacred cow there.

[12lightf]

OP is correct. Shame his argument is predicated on being wealthy enough to afford the healthcare he raves about or having an employer willing to do so. For anyone who has neither wealth nor an uncommonly generous corporate benefactor then these vaunted cancer survival rates are about as useful as a cat-flap in an elephant house. I value quality healthcare for everyone, not luxury healthcare for the privileged.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by cl_steele)
My dad had cancer and was treated by the NHS and survived just fine ... plus what do you know, it was free ... so i think i'll stick with the NHS over the over-priced American style healthcare system any day..

I am happy for your father but according to this chart, he got lucky. If he was in a privatised system like America, his odds of survival would have been 50% higher. I already dealt with the issue of cost in my post but are you saying you value a bit of money above your own or a family member's life?

[Sdiff]

(Original post by 12lightf)
OP is correct. Shame his argument is predicated on being wealthy enough to afford the healthcare he raves about or having an employer willing to do so. For anyone who has neither wealth nor an uncommonly generous corporate benefactor then these vaunted cancer survival rates are about as useful as a cat-flap in an elephant house. I value quality healthcare for everyone, not luxury healthcare for the privileged.

Have you heard of medicare/medicaid? The US government provides healthcare to very lower income people. Nothing stopping us from doing the same here.

[kopite493]

(Original post by Sdiff)
I am happy for your father but according to this chart, he got lucky. If he was in a privatised system like America, his odds of survival would have been 50% higher. I already dealt with the issue of cost in my post but are you saying you value a bit of money above your own or a family member's life?

no according to the chart everyone has a 50/50 chance

rather than a secelt view have an extra ten percent chance lol amazing difference for an extra 50 grand

[When you see it...]

How do cancer survival rates indicate likelihood to cure (a certain type of - I doubt you could cure all types in one) cancer?

[Sdiff]

(Original post by kopite493)
no according to the chart everyone has a 50/50 chance

rather than a secelt view have an extra ten percent chance lol amazing difference for an extra 50 grand

What on earth are you talking about? We are talking about his father, so we're looking at the male chart. Then we have 44.8 vs 66.3.
Now some basic mathematics:
66.3 - 44.8 equals 21.5.

Divide 21.5 by 44.8 and multiply by 100 to get just under 50%.
Did they not teach you how to work out percentages in your school?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Sdiff)
I am happy for your father but according to this chart, he got lucky. If he was in a privatised system like America, his odds of survival would have been 50% higher. I already dealt with the issue of cost in my post but are you saying you value a bit of money above your own or a family member's life?

well lets put it this way ... you get your health insurance in america and you get cancer ... they treat you and the insurance covers it fair enough but then you have two problems 1] what if you go into remission? unless youre made of gold youll never be able to afford the insurance premium that would have been slapped on you and 2] what if your cover runs out? youre pretty pooped then arent you?
i dont dispute the figures but considering how much more prosperous america is than the UK its only natural they can afford to pump more money in?

[12lightf]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Have you heard of medicare/medicaid? The US government provides healthcare to very lower income people. Nothing stopping us from doing the same here.

Yeah, problem there. I have this bizarre attachment to universal healthcare. Despite Medicare & Medicaid going some way to covering the most needy, in 2009 there were still 50m Americans remaining uncovered by this Holy Grail that is American private healthcare.

[117r]

(Original post by Sdiff)
I am happy for your father but according to this chart, he got lucky. If he was in a privatised system like America, his odds of survival would have been 50% higher. I already dealt with the issue of cost in my post but are you saying you value a bit of money above your own or a family member's life?

I'm not sure, so am perfectly willing to be corrected, but should these figures really be taken at face value? It does make sense that American survival rates will be slightly higher since they have better facilities and more equipment etc. over there.

However, what percentage of sufferers are properly treated in the USA? Those from poorer backgrounds who can't afford health insurance may be less likely to survive cancer due to having poorer health on average. These people will be treated by the NHS, but will not by the American system. I'm not sure how large an effect this would have on the statistics, and the more I think about it, the more insignificant it seems to me really.

Anyway, the main point should be that as an American, if you got cancer you could have considerable financial issues thrown on you by the (corrupt in some places?) system. That means more stress and considerably more discomfort for the patient. Can you imagine not only having cancer but having the worry of not being able to live a good lifestyle after recovering? Over here that problem hardly exists.

As you can probably tell, I have slightly limited (though not a useless amount) of knowledge on the subject and so cannot go into more specifics. It would be great if someone who knows what they are really talking about could validate/dispute what I've been saying.

One thing's for sure though, and that is that the graph you presented is a long way off giving a complete picture.

[117r]

(Original post by kopite493)
no according to the chart everyone has a 50/50 chance

Not really sure where you got that from lol...

[Sdiff]

(Original post by When you see it...)
How do cancer survival rates indicate likelihood to cure (a certain type of - I doubt you could cure all types in one) cancer?

It is just an average. Here is some on individual cancers:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Q...0-h/cancer.bmp

[reuse-this-bag]

(Original post by 117r)
Not really sure where you got that from lol...

http://riffenberg.wordpress.com/

The OP appears to have got the chart from a blog.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

I'm wondering how much use it is to compare "all types of cancer", I mean, are we to assume that every country gets proportionally the same amount of each type? Or could the UK have a higher proportion of the harder to treat ones?

[Sdiff]

(Original post by 12lightf)
Yeah, problem there. I have this bizarre attachment to universal healthcare. Despite Medicare & Medicaid going some way to covering the most needy, in 2009 there were still 50m Americans remaining uncovered by this Holy Grail that is American private healthcare.

Maybe they chose not to buy insurance? If they are not entitled to medicaid/care then they can afford it.

(Original post by cl_steele)
well lets put it this way ... you get your health insurance in america and you get cancer ... they treat you and the insurance covers it fair enough but then you have two problems 1] what if you go into remission? unless youre made of gold you'll never be able to afford the insurance premium that would have been slapped on you and 2] what if your cover runs out? youre pretty pooped then arent you?
i dont dispute the figures but considering how much more prosperous america is than the UK its only natural they can afford to pump more money in?

Why are they more prosperous? More capitalism perhaps? If you discourage hard work with high taxes don't be surprised if the country ends up poorer.
As for your talk about "what if you go into remission". Well what if you die in a socialised system. At least you won't be in debt I guess.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
I'm wondering how much use it is to compare "all types of cancer", I mean, are we to assume that every country gets proportionally the same amount of each type? Or could the UK have a higher proportion of the harder to treat ones?

Sorry I dealt with this but the link didn't work. Here is US vs Europe on individual cancers.
Edit, link not working again. Hang on.

[Sdiff]

Here is some data on individual cancers
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

[12lightf]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Maybe they chose not to buy insurance? If they are not entitled to medicaid/care then they can afford it.

Oh come on. You're obviously intelligent. Do you honestly think 50m Americans just thought there were better things to spend their money on than health insurance? Are you completely unaware of the - to say the least - unethical behaviour with regard to backing out - on whatever minor technicalities can be dreamt up - of contracts on people who become sick on the part of insurance companies? I suggest you self-educate a little.
The market isn't the beneficent deity that its acolytes make it out to be. I would hazard a guess that one could struggle to imagine a less suitable entity to manage healthcare. There is no room for the human kindness and compassion that I would hope motivates healthcare when money is the beginning and end of things.