[DarkTitan]

I suggest you have a look at "Global Cancer Statistics" from Cancer journal for clinicians...That journal is more trust worthy than a blog...throughout that journal where it is specifically able to comment on the UK, all it says is ...you know what i'll copy and paste the quotes for you to see as some of you might not have access.

Talking about breast cancer
"Incidence rates in some of these counties,
including the United States, United Kingdom, France,
and Australia, sharply decreased from the beginning
of the millennium, partly due to lower use of combined
postmenopausal hormone therapy"

"Therefore, lung cancer rates in females are increasing
in many countries except the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and Australia, where they
are plateauing."

"Death rates for prostate cancer have been decreasing
in many developed countries, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United
States, Italy, and Norway in part because of
the improved treatment with curative intent."


There was no specific data to the UK in that review, can't be bothered to fish out any others nor go into the reference to fish out those UK specific data...but by the looks of it we are tied with USA in our decreasing cases/death rates by going with this.

There are other problem when comparing the two countries but I would hope you are aware of them..if not, I don't care.

Basically what I'm trying to say is the NHS is doing a dam good job of keeping people alive. They slip up here and there, but know this....when you break a leg the doctors first questions would probably be, "Hi my names blad blah and I WILL be your doctor today"

As compared to "Hi, do you have any money?"

Over exaggeration but gets the point through.

[Iron Lady]

I came onto this thread thinking it would have been one of Otkem's threads.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by 12lightf)
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.

Well perhaps the US system isn't perfect. We could improve the system via a strong efficient legal system in terms of insurance. But saving lives is the most important thing when it comes to healthcare.

[When you see it...]

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

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

My point is, survival rates have nothing to do with curing which is something you mentioned in the OP.

[12lightf]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Well perhaps the US system isn't perfect. We could improve the system via a strong efficient legal system in terms of insurance. But saving lives is the most important thing when it comes to healthcare.

I agree that saving lives is most important, but you have this bizarre idea that cancer survival is the only thing that counts in terms of saving lives. Is a broad application of healthcare unimportant as long as some people benefit enormously? Why are the lives cancer-stricken people who can pay for healthcare more important than those who cannot who would be in such a position as to not only die from cancer, but any number of curable diseases?

The best way to maximise the collective benefit from healthcare is a universal, free at the point of use system. Sure, if your frankly frightening logic was applied I imagine cancer survival rates would increase, but at what price? Are the lives of those who don't receive the favour of the God of the Market just unimportant?

[Spaz Man]

NHS: Costs 8.6% of GDP. All UK citizens covered.
American System: Costs 16% of GDP. 40 MILLION Americans uncovered.

Before Obama's healthcare reform it was a nightmare for people with pre-existing conditions even if they could afford insurance.

Health care is a right, not a privilege.

[. . .]

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....k-cancer-care/

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Sdiff)

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.

maybe having 5x as many people and a land mass several times the size of ours also has something to do with it...
im not quite sure how higher taxes are relevant? iceland and sweden are some of the highest taxed countries in the world but theyre right up the top of the list..
not quite sure if you could call that a silver lining, at least in a scoailized system youd have another chance at it, usually.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

heard some guy called steve jobs died of cancer... poor bastard should of had money...

[Gwilym101]

According to global cancer statistics most of Africa has a lower cancer mortality rather than north America. The fact that their healthcare system is private is irrelevant and most european citizens have significantly longer life expectancies than a US citizen.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by cl_steele)
maybe having 5x as many people and a land mass several times the size of ours also has something to do with it...
im not quite sure how higher taxes are relevant? iceland and sweden are some of the highest taxed countries in the world but theyre right up the top of the list..
not quite sure if you could call that a silver lining, at least in a scoailized system youd have another chance at it, usually.

A second chance? Are you saying that socialised medicine can resurrect people?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Sdiff)
A second chance? Are you saying that socialised medicine can resurrect people?

no, if youd actually read it in context im saying that people who arent millionaires can go back to hospital to get treated. Just to reiterate what i originally said, and you seem to have forgotten. If you get cancer in the US your insurance will not just go through the roof it will hit sodding pluto and unless you have a **** load of money youre as good as buggered.

[Pride]

because it's all kinds of cancer shown on there, it's not easy to take that seriously. The NHS is adequate for cancer treatment, the government certainly puts a lot of money into the NHS, and there is always news on new cancer discoveries, ways of diagnosing, and ways of improving quality of life. and there's another problem. Cancer treatment isn't always about curing the patient, sometimes quality of life is the prime concern. There are malignant and benign tumours. The situations are hugely varied, cancers are very different, and are only linked by the fact that they all involve over production of cells.

[Joinedup]

Tbh I followed the link and read that the usa diagnoses a lot of false positives because doctors order unnecessary tests (with non zero false positive rates) which i presume is because they need to cover their asses from malpractice lawyers. I.e. A lot more american 'cancer survivors' never had cancer than is the case in less lawyer ridden countries.

[muddywaters51]

The NHS is actually a joke

Also please stop calling it "free". Its free at the point of entry but it defnitely isnt free. It costs 120+ billion pounds every year.

Inefficient with money and do not deliver a good quality service especially for how much some people pay into it. Pretty much every single time I have used the NHS the service has been terrible. There has been one exception. Im not exaggerating either and Ive heard plenty of similar stories. What is my alternative? Pay even more for private healthcare which right now I would strongly consider doing next time I have a health related problem. So I have to pay twice to recieve decent healthcare, while other people are freeriding it.

The waiting times are beyond terrible in more ways than one. When you get to the GP, ER, the physio, the fracture clinic, the waiting times are ridiculous. The time it takes to get an appointment for a scan or the physio is ridiculous as well.

The attitude of a vast majority of the staff is terrible. Unhelpful and unfriendly. This includes receptionists, doctors and nurses.

Countless doctors who don't speak English that well and have extremely thick accents. It takes some effort to understand them. It is usually south asians but Ive had some east europeans.

What makes it worse is that you have to pay for other peoples personal choices. Why should I have to pay towards an obese persons health problems brought about through their own personal choices. Why should I pay towards their diabetes meds or their blood pressure meds. Why should I pay towards a smokers cancer treatment or their emphysema treatment. Why should I pay towards treatment for STDs. Why should I pay for the treatment of health problems brought about through drug use. This includes alcohol.

This is one of the reasons why I dont like fat people.

[doggyfizzel]

One of the most important things about cancer is early detection. Something we certainly have a problem with, hence all the check you breasts, balls, and prostate adverts. Unless cancer is detected at the same time, I can't see how you can compare survival rates. If someone has a lump etc, and decides not to go the doctor for 3 months, then that person is 3 months worse off than someone who didn't regardless.

Even if those rates are true, I don't see how that equates with writing off an entire system. Its easy to pick holes in the NHS, but many people who do would be grateful of it if they tried to get health insurance in the US, any pre-existing conditions or serious treatments and you would be lucky to afford such care.

[corpuscallosum]

Survival isn't dependent on the healthcare system. 'All types' is pretty broad, some types of cancer are more difficult to treat than others, especially if they're diagnosed too late. These statistics also fail to mention what time period this was done in, what sample size they took (and whether that sample is representative of the entire country).

[illusionz]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Well perhaps the US system isn't perfect. We could improve the system via a strong efficient legal system in terms of insurance. But saving lives is the most important thing when it comes to healthcare.

Yes which is why it is much better to be able to save the lives of everyone in your country regardless of income.

[shutyourface]

Without sounding dismissive I would like to point out that the treatment from the NHS is free for cancer patients and isn't only reserved for those who can afford to pay. Now, I'm one of those people who can afford to pay and in all honesty, I'm 17 now and I've never been to an NHS hospital or dentist, my GP is on harley street so perhaps I don't fully understand the implications, however what I do understand is this: cancer is a disease with immunosuppressant elements which can be affected by stress- therefore I think its good that the NHS provides free treatments and that patients don't have to worry about the cost or their families well being afterwards because the treatment is FREE and will always be FREE. Also other variables might account for the statistical difference between the countries such as the fact that the UK has a bad alcohol culture, and probably has a higher smoking rate and lower life expectancy than other countries in the same area.
I do note that progress probably could be made, but that it what will happen in the future.

[Joinedup]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
The NHS is actually a joke

Also please stop calling it "free". Its free at the point of entry but it defnitely isnt free. It costs 120+ billion pounds every year.

Inefficient with money and do not deliver a good quality service especially for how much some people pay into it. Pretty much every single time I have used the NHS the service has been terrible. There has been one exception. Im not exaggerating either and Ive heard plenty of similar stories. What is my alternative? Pay even more for private healthcare which right now I would strongly consider doing next time I have a health related problem. So I have to pay twice to recieve decent healthcare, while other people are freeriding it.

The waiting times are beyond terrible in more ways than one. When you get to the GP, ER, the physio, the fracture clinic, the waiting times are ridiculous. The time it takes to get an appointment for a scan or the physio is ridiculous as well.

The attitude of a vast majority of the staff is terrible. Unhelpful and unfriendly. This includes receptionists, doctors and nurses.

Countless doctors who don't speak English that well and have extremely thick accents. It takes some effort to understand them. It is usually south asians but Ive had some east europeans.

What makes it worse is that you have to pay for other peoples personal choices. Why should I have to pay towards an obese persons health problems brought about through their own personal choices. Why should I pay towards their diabetes meds or their blood pressure meds. Why should I pay towards a smokers cancer treatment or their emphysema treatment. Why should I pay towards treatment for STDs. Why should I pay for the treatment of health problems brought about through drug use. This includes alcohol.

This is one of the reasons why I dont like fat people.

yeah cos under private insurance schemes you'll never pay for anyone elses treatment