[Sdiff]

(Original post by LeeC)
The key word being most. Most isn't good enough. First world countries shouldn't be leaving percentages of their populations without access to medical care.

The USA provides medicare/medicaid to the poorest people, so those who don't have it simply couldn't be arsed to buy cover. Their fault.

Anyway, I would prefer a system whereby 80% of people have cover, but of those 80% will survive cancer, as opposed to a system where 100% have cover, but of those only 40% survive cancer. you say we should take money from people and provide it to everyone: Fine, but you'll have to argue your point rather than just stating it.

[Ry_p94]

Cancer survival rates are the ultimate proof of how good a healthcare system is? Not to be dismissive, but it IS only one type of disease, and survival is dependent on far more factors than how good a healthcare system your country has. In the case of the US, they have better equipment and, to an extent, better care, FOR THE WEALTHY.

You can moan about 'socialised medicine' like it's a bad thing from your ivory tower but at least TRY to empathise with the 40million< Americans without any health insurance whatsoever. Guess what the most common cause of bankruptcy is in the USA?

[SmallTownGirl]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Given that only one of the systems on the list are private and the rest are public, and private is first, isn't it common sense that a public healthcare system would come second? In fact there is no other possible way. Feel free to try with this little exercise:

You have 10 healthcare services. 1 is private, the rest public. Given that the beat one is private, find a way that the second is also private.

Difficult isn't it?

But look at the rates for women. The top 7 are within 3% of each other. That could be down to lifestyle, going to the doctor earlier, types of cancer etc. All things that aren't controlled by the healthcare system. The US isn't that far ahead.

Also, bigger countries mean that you're more likely to find a specialised department to treat the exact type of cancer that you have, which would increase survival rates. In the UK we can't do that for all cancers because there's not enought people to make it viable.

And you cannot take one graph for one disease and say 'look, nationalised healthcare kills people'.

[ALazyThracian]

I suffered from cancer and i was treated at an NHS hospital, not sounding stereotypical but the only problem i had was the food.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I'm no expert on Rife but the devices were sold in 1994 as far as I know. Rife died in 1974.

Fair enough, doesn't really affect the point I'm making though. He was a quack and you're attempting to use him to suggest there's a vast conspiracy to conceal cancer cures.

It's a bit like the people that claim cannabis cures cancer. Absolute nonsense.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by 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?

A few pertinent points:

i)Cancer is not the only disease. Cardiac kills more people, and we happen to be one of the best in the world, set to become number 1 in Europe later this year.

ii)Moreover, people have to die of something. As you get better at treating conditions that kill you younger, you end up with more people dying of diseases that kill you older (i.e. Cancer). Therefore taking cancer survival as a sole metric for quality of a health system is fallacious.

iii)Cancer survival rates are collected in different ways in different countries. This is important - if you class survival rate as from first symptoms or from start of treatment, that can lead to a difference of months or even years.

iv)The US survival rates are heavily skewed by prostate cancer. This is a very common disease that will affect most men, but most won't know they have it when they die - far more men die with prostate cancer than of it. However, in the US they screen for prostate cancer, find all these indolent non-life threatening cancers and treat them (with all the complications not least impotence and incontinence...), chalking them up as a cure when they never threatened life in the first place. Meanwhile in Europe, we only treat prostate cancer that presents with symptoms and is therefore lifethreatening. All those indolent prostate cancers are never even picked up and never enter the stats.

v)Looking through the web of sources based on sources that this charts is based on, it turns out the primary source of data is the Eurocare study, the latest data of which is available is from 1993-2003, and certainly not the most flattering period of time for the NHS, after years of chronic underfunding from the Tories. Not exactly up to date info...

[FDR]

(Original post by 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?

Their healthcare system is quite obviously not the best because over 45,000 people die every year simply because they don't have access to any healthcare. It's no use saying how great it is if a lot of people can't get access to it.

Quite simply put, to say you are an idiot would be to do idiots an injustice. You say 'millions of people die, who would otherwise survive if they were in a privatised healthcare system.', but this is beyond idiotic - for starters, a lot of people would not have access to such healthcare in the first place, under such a system, and secondly, under such a system, you receive much, much less preventative care as this is not seen as profitable, and as such people get ill more often. Don't forget the fact that under such a system that you so strongly advocate, particularly an unregulated one such as that in place as recently as five years ago, people with pre-existing conditions had a much, much harder time getting any coverage - do you think it's fair that people with conditions such as Diabetes, or existing heart conditions should be left to suffer and die because private firms see it as unprofitable to provide cover? From your post, you obviously do, because you can't comprehend the human cost of such a system, and are blinded by ideology.

You also forget the fact that many of those who are covered are paying huge sums of money for care that would be given free at the point of use in any other developed country. They may have better cancer survival rates not because the system is better, but rather because the system serves fewer people per capita given many do not have access, and secondly, because the ridiculously high amounts paid to HMOs (Healthcare firms are amongst the most profitable in the US). The answer to this isn't to say 'privatisation is the answer', but rather, to provide more funds to the NHS - something which could easily be done at the moment given the fact that the government can currently borrow money for free (something that private firms would probably not have the privelige of doing so).

[jj193]

America is the only country where the survival of men is higher then women. Men have money.

[SaySaam]

At least here in the UK we get peace of mind. If you talk to a lot of lower income Americans on cancer forums, it's all people without a diagnosis asking the internet if they have cancer because they can't afford to go to the doctor.

I'd much rather be diagnosed and be able to get on with solving the issue, than spend too long panicking about whether I'm ill and finally raising the cash for an appointment to be diagnosed too late...

[LeeC]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I think I read a while back that there are numerous cures for cancer which were found during the 50s, and were forgotten because they could put pharmaceutical companies out of business.

*******s, cancer companies would make TRILLIONS from any drug that could cure cancer!

If they found it, they'd want to sell it ASAP before their competitors potentially developed if first.

Cancer will never be wiped out as it can be caused by environmental factors too, so they would never need to worry about curing too many people.

There are also many other illnesses to be cured, from which the company could make profits.

Besides, there are hundreds of different types of cancer, they are never going to be cured by one drug.

Please think about your conspiracy theories Martyn!

[FDR]

(Original post by Sdiff)
The USA provides medicare/medicaid to the poorest people, so those who don't have it simply couldn't be arsed to buy cover. Their fault.

Anyway, I would prefer a system whereby 80% of people have cover, but of those 80% will survive cancer, as opposed to a system where 100% have cover, but of those only 40% survive cancer. you say we should take money from people and provide it to everyone: Fine, but you'll have to argue your point rather than just stating it.

The cancer incidence rate in the UK is about 0.5%. This equates to roughly 300,000 people getting cancer in a given year. Let's say we implement your system, which, let's assume, consequently increases Cancer survival rates from 45% to 60%. This equates to about 45,000 people more surviving cancer every year. However, assuming that a similar proportion of UK people cannot get insurance as in the US, moving to a private system would mean that around 17% of people would be without insurance, which equates to around 10.2 million people, who would be completely denied any form of healthcare whatsoever.

As you can see, the numbers don't quite add up in your favour. You want to take 10 million people completely out of coverage, so as to [potentially - there are of course no guarantees] save an extra 45,000 lives. Plus, as evidenced from your data, the group who would benefit the most from this are, of course, rich men, who can afford the coverage.

Overwhelmingly, what you are proposing is disastrous, not to mention extremely unfair. As I've said before, the money for improved NHS coverage can be provided by the government who can borrow at around 2% rates.

[PimpinisEasy]

Anyone with a brain knows the NHS is complete crap!!!!

It only serves to make affordable good private health care impossible. I almost died thanks to the NHS, I was very seriously ill and I was sent home three time.... lucky to be alive!

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by madders94)
When you break your leg playing football, why should I pay towards your treatment? When you get seriously injured in a speeding car crash, why should I pay towards your treatment? We can carry this on all day until suddenly, no-one deserves treatment.

And as for foreign doctors, when I was in hospital the one who seemed the nicest was the foreign doctor (I think she was from Hong Kong). The British ones seemed to lack enthusiasm and, more importantly, smiles. Most of the nurses were amazing - friendly, considerate and were willing to bend the rules slightly because of the circumstances. I agree on the waiting times - I'm waiting for a referral for a scan and a specialist and I'm prepared for it to take months until I get an appointment for either - but the solution for that isn't scrap the NHS, it's work out who "deserves" it more (deserves is a horrible word but hey). First thing we need to do is prevent health tourism; people moving here just for the healthcare. Then we need to look at the right of newly-arrived immigrants and tourists to access free healthcare - all incomers to the country should have adequate health insurance and be able to pay for their healthcare. People who can pay for private should be encouraged to do so - not forced, but perhaps if there could be some incentive in return for freeing up places in the NHS for families like mine where we'd never in a million years be able to afford private healthcare.

If I could go private, I would, because of the good things I've heard about it. However, I will always champion the NHS because it saved my life when I was younger.

Yeah youre getting the idea. If I break my leg I shouldnt expect anyone else to pay for my treatment. If I get injured in a serious car crash I shouldnt expect other people to pay for my treatment.

In my opinion healthcare is not a human right because in my opinion goods and services cannot be a human right.

I had symptoms of testicular cancer yet it took 8 weeks to get a scan and then the results back. Considering I pay thousands of pounds every year into the NHS this is terrible. If I paid thousands for a different service and I got this kind of terrible service I wouldnt be happy and you probably wouldnt be either. I would stop paying for the service or find a different service provider but realistically I cant do that because my tax money will still go to the NHS. If I go private Im still paying for the NHS.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That nice reliable source you have there op.

[madders94]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
Yeah youre getting the idea. If I break my leg I shouldnt expect anyone else to pay for my treatment. If I get injured in a serious car crash I shouldnt expect other people to pay for my treatment.

In my opinion healthcare is not a human right because in my opinion goods and services cannot be a human right.

I had symptoms of testicular cancer yet it took 8 weeks to get a scan and then the results back. Considering I pay thousands of pounds every year into the NHS this is terrible. If I paid thousands for a different service and I got this kind of terrible service I wouldnt be happy and you probably wouldnt be either. I would stop paying for the service or find a different service provider but realistically I cant do that because my tax money will still go to the NHS. If I go private Im still paying for the NHS.

So if people can't pay for treatment, they should die? Most people accept the fact that the NHS is different to most services in that it is one of the only services which almost everyone in the UK uses, so the waiting times are to be expected.

It always strikes me as incredibly selfish when people begrudge paying for the NHS through taxes. If the NHS was no longer funded through taxes, the government would find something else to tax you for - and to be honest, I'd much rather be taxed for the continuation of a national health service that provides help to everyone who needs it regardless of financial situation than something like paying for an MP's wages or something like that.

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by madders94)
So if people can't pay for treatment, they should die? Most people accept the fact that the NHS is different to most services in that it is one of the only services which almost everyone in the UK uses, so the waiting times are to be expected.

It always strikes me as incredibly selfish when people begrudge paying for the NHS through taxes. If the NHS was no longer funded through taxes, the government would find something else to tax you for - and to be honest, I'd much rather be taxed for the continuation of a national health service that provides help to everyone who needs it regardless of financial situation than something like paying for an MP's wages or something like that.

Why should I tolerate such long waiting times if I pay thousands towards it? Maybe if I was a free rider who payed no tax and got this service for free I could expect a longer waiting time because in that situation I would actually be getting free healthcare. Are you suggesting I should be content with the terrible service I have recieved time and time again? Despite all the money and complaints.

Am I selfish because I dont like paying thousands of pounds towards poor service? or because I dont like being forced to pay for other peoples poor choices? Please tell my why I am selfish for not wanting to pay into this system.

No doubt I would not approve of that other thing they find to tax me on. Part of my tax money already contributes towards MP wages so I dont see why the MPs would be getting a pay rise if the NHS was abolished or changed drastically.

[madders94]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
Why should I tolerate such long waiting times if I pay thousands towards it? Maybe if I was a free rider who payed no tax and got this service for free I could expect a longer waiting time because in that situation I would actually be getting free healthcare. Are you suggesting I should be content with the terrible service I have recieved time and time again? Despite all the money and complaints.

Am I selfish because I dont like paying thousands of pounds towards poor service? or because I dont like being forced to pay for other peoples poor choices? Please tell my why I am selfish for not wanting to pay into this system.

No doubt I would not approve of that other thing they find to tax me on. Part of my tax money already contributes towards MP wages so I dont see why the MPs would be getting a pay rise if the NHS was abolished or changed drastically.

I'm suggesting that if you're so disgusted with this service, maybe you should go private? I think you're selfish because if everyone shares your viewpoint, and if everyone who could go private was able to stop paying taxes towards the NHS and chose to do so, the NHS would collapse, thus making it so that healthcare - and, in extreme cases, life - is something that the wealthy have more of a right to than the poor.

Not all health issues are down to poor life choices - my dad didn't choose to develop mental illnesses or to be born with fibromyalgia, I didn't choose to develop these kidney problems which are doubtless using NHS resources, people don't choose to be born with Downs' syndrome or similar conditions which require frequent and probably expensive treatment - why are we suddenly less deserving of healthcare than rich people?

And I've no doubt that if a reform of the system was to take place, the sheer levels of bureacracy would insist that countless staff members were hired to enforce the reform and whatever, and their wages have to come from somewhere. Somehow I can't see Call Me Dave dipping into his own pocket to pay for it.

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by madders94)
I'm suggesting that if you're so disgusted with this service, maybe you should go private? I think you're selfish because if everyone shares your viewpoint, and if everyone who could go private was able to stop paying taxes towards the NHS and chose to do so, the NHS would collapse, thus making it so that healthcare - and, in extreme cases, life - is something that the wealthy have more of a right to than the poor.

Not all health issues are down to poor life choices - my dad didn't choose to develop mental illnesses or to be born with fibromyalgia, I didn't choose to develop these kidney problems which are doubtless using NHS resources, people don't choose to be born with Downs' syndrome or similar conditions which require frequent and probably expensive treatment - why are we suddenly less deserving of healthcare than rich people?

And I've no doubt that if a reform of the system was to take place, the sheer levels of bureacracy would insist that countless staff members were hired to enforce the reform and whatever, and their wages have to come from somewhere. Somehow I can't see Call Me Dave dipping into his own pocket to pay for it.

So maybe I should go and pay for private healthcare but I should still pay thousands for the service I do not use. ok sounds like a great deal for me.

No not all healthcare issues are down to personal choice. I said that I contribute towards paying towards treatment for peoples poor choices. Which I do.

As I said before. No one has the right to healthcare in my opinion. No one has the right to goods and services in my opinion. As healthcare is a service I do not see it as a human right.

Im still not seeing how I am selfish because I dont like paying so much money for such poor service and because I dont like the idea of my tax money paying towards other peoples poor lifestyle choices.

It doesnt really matter anyway. Nothing will happen to the NHS, it isnt going away because people are too used to it and seem to think without it only the elite would be able to afford healthcare and everyone else would rot in the streets. I dont like it at all but there isnt much I can do because of how much support it gets.

By the way I dont mind helping other people out. I give to charities already. I dont have a problem with helping out people in need but I like to control how much and choose exactly where the money goes and how the money is spent.

[Topcat19]

the problem for americans is that they're delaying the afterlife by perpuatating an inequal system. Even if brits do die quicker, we go to heavan while the yanks have to try and squeeze through a camel or needle or something

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
So maybe I should go and pay for private healthcare but I should still pay thousands for the service I do not use. ok sounds like a great deal for me.

Private healthcare in this country is massively subsidised by the NHS (which covers a lot of their capital, training and complication costs).

As for stating that you had poor service, I'm curious - what exactly in your experience did you define as poor service?