[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
From the paper itself

"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"

Excellent. So we're using 20 year old data from a period when the NHS was chronically underfunded by a Tory government to criticise it today. Needless to say, cancer survival has dramatically improved since then.

It is not easy to get recent cancer survival statistics. Studies done usually use data that is at least 5 years old so it would be hard to find any data for survival statistics in the last 5 years. The results I posted below are from 2000-2002. Much newer than the earlier statistics.

In Europe they also did not count cancers upon death in the data.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
It is not easy to get recent cancer survival statistics. Studies done usually use data that is at least 5 years old so it would be hard to find any data for survival statistics in the last 5 years.

Sure, but early 90s data? It's hardly relevent to todays practice.

(Original post by fudgesundae)
The results I posted below are from 2000-2002. Much newer than the earlier statistics.

In Europe they also did not count cancers upon death in the data.

I can't get access to the original paper, but looking at the abstract, 'Europe' literally includes all of Europe with a note saying that north and west Europe peform better than the values stated there.

Moreover the US has very good stats, but they can be misleading due to lead time bias and detecting and 'treating' of indolent cancers that would otherwise never cause a problem to the patient (this is especially true of prostate cancer).

[in_jeopardy]

Why have you all moved on to this rediculous and unrelated argument about the effectiveness of the current NHS?

Regardless of the libertarians attempts to make this an ecenomical issue rather than a moral one, arguing that we should privatise healthcare because one particular system of publicly funded healthcare doesn't appear to work as well as a privatly funded one might (pure conjecture) is simply rediculous.

This is a moral argument at heart.


Besides this, in order to impliment a private healthcare system, the govenment would have to put taxes to use in funding this through tax breaks and incentives for businesses without anyones direct consent. So that argument is at least flawed.

The argument that a private healthcare system would generate proffits is also similarly flawed, profits (should they ever exist) would not be generated on behalf of the people of this country at large, while it would still cost them money to pay for the services.

[alex5455]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
But weren't you saying that routine scanning and check ups help? Life expectancy is a poor measure of the standard of healthcare. There are so many other factors which can affect one's life expectancy.

going to the doctor alot is not the same as being screened for diseases i would suggest its due to the private system and it being in the private systems interests to have multiple visits, more profit

[jo1692]

(Original post by coastbeats)
I think you've misunderstood the person's argument. Treat healthcare as a good, a product like an ipod nano. Try and forget the results of having that good but why it should be provided by the government. Are you going to say that governments should provide ipods to people because if they don't have one they will not be happy or receive the positive affects an ipod could give.

It's flawed to state the affects of NOT providing something for someone. Healthcare, unlike ipods, is a sensitive case and so people think that they can change the argument as a result.

Yes, but the argument was flawed in the first place, because Ipods and healthcare are in no way analogous.

[jo1692]

(Original post by Cable)
Oh, don't be so overdramatic. I'm sure loads of people want a BMW M5. Yet if they can't afford it, then they can't buy it. End of.

Likewise, if you cannot directly afford healthcare for life/death situation, then yes the person will have to die.

But that's unlikely to happen or will only happen on few occasions. Why? Because the prices will be as cheap as possible due to competition. If someone struggles to afford the price, they can ask relatives/friends/neighbours to help them out and chip in some money. If this isn't convenient, then charities can help them out.

This is completely wrong. Prices are not as cheap as possible due to competition, just look at the USA, where healthcare costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy. My American cousin, for example, had a pre-existing condition so was not covered by insurance for it. All the bills after 12 years currently stand at $625,000. This is because a state healthcare system is not looking to make a profit, whereas the private healthcare industry is. There cannot really be competition in the usual sense with healthcare because the demand for healthcare is infinite and healthcare is required for survival, so companies can charge a lot more because people will go to extreme lengths to pay it that we wouldn't for something like a BMW e.g. selling their house, using their kids' college funds.

And you have no idea about some of the most vulnerable people. First, it is not just a case of 'chipping in some money'. We're not talking a few quid here, we're talking thousands. And we're not just talking a few people, we're talking a few million. Most of them don't have friends/relatives/neighbours who can afford to contribute, and if their friends/relatives/neighbours suddenly had to pay for their own healthcare, they'd be less inclined to give anyway even if they'd had the money at some point. It is a mark of real privilege to be able to rely financially on family and friends. Charities cannot reach everyone either.

I find the idea that people should be left to die just because they're short of money sickening and not a sign of a developed country. People dying of preventable diseases would be a step back for the UK, not a step forward. People would also turn more to crime to fund healthcare.

[McLisa]

Quality healthcare should be free, or subsidized i reckon

[nmward1]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
69.7% is pretty effective. That's all it is though. When compared to 75% in Europe and 85% in the US it doesn't seem so brilliant. I'm not saying the NHS is a poor healthcare system, just not one of the leading western ones.

Also I don't need to provide better data. Ever heard of the burden of proof? Well it lies with the person making the claim. So if you are claiming that it has improved, it is your duty to provide evidence of such a claim.



I didn't say you were lying, just that I won't just take your word for it. The word of someone I don't know is meaningless to me.



Again, the burden of proof/evidence lies with you. You are making a claim that it has improved, therefore you must provide statistics to back up such a claim.



I appreciate that it is only one type of cancer. However it is probably the most common cancer and the one which generates most awareness. The frequency of it allows us to generate very reliable statistics on survival rates.

Again you are making these claims that survival rates for these other things beats the American system without any statistics to back up your claims. Excuse me for not taking you seriously.

I only need to look at actual people and the experiences they have had compared to 40/50 years ago. I see very few people complaining about the NHS especially those of an older generation who knew what it used to be like.

The evidence is there just look at the NHS clinical websites. I don't see why should provide you with evidence when you actually have no first hand experience of how the nhs has changed and developed for the better.

Look at the olympic opening ceremony and the political statement made about the NHS. The UK would be screwed without our current healthcare system.

Also a good point is raised, you base a whole system on one set of outdated statistics. You prove that overall the American system is better.

And on a personal basis I believe the whole american healthcare system is a ridiculous way to view a persons health. Can you really put a price on letting someone live?

[fudgesundae]

I only need to look at actual people and the experiences they have had compared to 40/50 years ago. I see very few people complaining about the NHS especially those of an older generation who knew what it used to be like.

The evidence is there just look at the NHS clinical websites. I don't see why should provide you with evidence when you actually have no first hand experience of how the nhs has changed and developed for the better.

There are more than two options. There isn't just the NHS and how UK healthcare used to be. Just because it is better than it was 50 years ago (considering the medical and societal advancements I hardly think that is an achievement) doesn't mean it is amazing.

Look at the olympic opening ceremony and the political statement made about the NHS. The UK would be screwed without our current healthcare system.

Yes, because every country without a state healthcare system is screwed

Also a good point is raised, you base a whole system on one set of outdated statistics. You prove that overall the American system is better.

I have provided newer statistics in one of my later posts.

(Original post by nmward1)
And on a personal basis I believe the whole american healthcare system is a ridiculous way to view a persons health. Can you really put a price on letting someone live?

Yes. Food and water have prices. They are more fundamental to life than healthcare.

[nmward1]

[QUOTE=fudgesundae;38751844]QUOTE]

"There are more than two options. There isn't just the NHS and how UK healthcare used to be. Just because it is better than it was 50 years ago (considering the medical and societal advancements I hardly think that is an achievement) doesn't mean it is amazing."

Any improvement, cure, or helped person is an achievement and is amazing.

"Yes, because every country without a state healthcare system is screwed "

You really didn't understand what i was trying to say, the UK wouldn't know what to do if we didn't have the NHS and we would never agree to getting rid of it because of it's benefits and how it allows fair treatment for all despite income and the seriousness of their illness. It's a moral/ ethical argument really "why should we pay to help someone else". Personally I'd rather help someone than see them suffer.

"I have provided newer statistics in one of my later posts."

For everything? I highly doubt that!

"Yes. Food and water have prices. They are more fundamental to life than healthcare"

what is your point here exactly? What your saying is obvious but if healthcare wasn't fundamental, we wouldn't bother at all...

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by nmward1)
what is your point here?

What was your point when you first quoted me? All I did was reply to/counter each of your points.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by jo1692)
This is completely wrong. Prices are not as cheap as possible due to competition, just look at the USA, where healthcare costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy. My American cousin, for example, had a pre-existing condition so was not covered by insurance for it. All the bills after 12 years currently stand at $625,000. This is because a state healthcare system is not looking to make a profit, whereas the private healthcare industry is. There cannot really be competition in the usual sense with healthcare because the demand for healthcare is infinite and healthcare is required for survival, so companies can charge a lot more because people will go to extreme lengths to pay it that we wouldn't for something like a BMW e.g. selling their house, using their kids' college funds.

And you have no idea about some of the most vulnerable people. First, it is not just a case of 'chipping in some money'. We're not talking a few quid here, we're talking thousands. And we're not just talking a few people, we're talking a few million. Most of them don't have friends/relatives/neighbours who can afford to contribute, and if their friends/relatives/neighbours suddenly had to pay for their own healthcare, they'd be less inclined to give anyway even if they'd had the money at some point. It is a mark of real privilege to be able to rely financially on family and friends. Charities cannot reach everyone either.

I find the idea that people should be left to die just because they're short of money sickening and not a sign of a developed country. People dying of preventable diseases would be a step back for the UK, not a step forward. People would also turn more to crime to fund healthcare.

People aren't just dying all across the US because they can't afford healthcare. Your cousin may have spent a lot of money, but he's alive. People aren't just left to die. Estimates vary but I've seen that anywhere from 80-85% of Americans have health insurance. Ever heard of Medicaid or Medicare?

[nmward1]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
What was your point when you first quoted me? All I did was reply to/counter each of your points.

Apologies, it didn't do what i intended it to... hence why i edited it ...haven't quite sorted the multi-quote thing

[kitari]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
People aren't just dying all across the US because they can't afford healthcare. Your cousin may have spent a lot of money, but he's alive. People aren't just left to die. Estimates vary but I've seen that anywhere from 80-85% of Americans have health insurance. Ever heard of Medicaid or Medicare?

Medicaid and Medicare are very good systems but unfortunately a lot of people fall within a gap of being too 'rich' for financial aid but too poor to afford insurance, leaving many without any kind of protection.

Also there's the factor of excess. Most insurance companies still make you pay an excess on the treatment you've received, just like your car insurance, meaning even more people avoid going to the doctors.

And you're right, people aren't just dying. The hospitals - by law - have to treat any emergency cases that walk in the door, regardless of your insurance status. But as soon as you get out they slap you with the bill and if you didn't have insurance when you went in, you better hope you had an expendable $3000 lying around to pay off that broken arm.

[somethingbeautiful]

I'd say it's a privilege. It becomes a right when the state implements it and offers it - if they can offer access of it to person A then person B has an equal right to have access to it to. Fundamentally, humans aren't born with a set of rights in 'the state of nature' - when we're governed we have rights.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Tahooper)
I hope OP ends up in a situation where he can't pay for medical treatment he needs to save his life, then maybe he will be able to empathise with everyone else on here.

I can't see why he would, I have family abroad who have been through these hardships you talk of my uncle had around 10-12 different types of cancer including a brain tumour, they aren't well off at all living off a measly pension yet they still believe as do we that healthcare is not a right and people should not be forced to pay for his procedure, all that happened was my 68 year old granddad found a job and payed it off, we tried to help where possible but we couldn't either really.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by somethingbeautiful)
I'd say it's a privilege. It becomes a right when the state implements it and offers it - if they can offer access of it to person A then person B has an equal right to have access to it to. Fundamentally, humans aren't born with a set of rights in 'the state of nature' - when we're governed we have rights.

thank you!! could never have said it better.

[Summa Laude]

Yes.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by nmward1)
Any improvement, cure, or helped person is an achievement and is amazing.

Of course it is. But saying that where the NHS is now is amazing is just over hyping it. The NHS is behind/right where you would expect a healthcare system in one of the world's richest countries to be.

You really didn't understand what i was trying to say, the UK wouldn't know what to do if we didn't have the NHS and we would never agree to getting rid of it because of it's benefits and how it allows fair treatment for all despite income and the seriousness of their illness. It's a moral/ ethical argument really "why should we pay to help someone else". Personally I'd rather help someone than see them suffer.

If the NHS wasn't there we would have another healthcare system in place. You said we would be screwed without it. Well we wouldn't.

For everything? I highly doubt that!

What do you mean by everything? Earlier I provided cancer survival statistics from about 20 years ago. I then provided some from 7-10 years ago.

what is your point here exactly? What your saying is obvious but if healthcare wasn't fundamental, we wouldn't bother at all...

You said you can't put a price on letting someone live. Food and water have prices, so there has been a price on letting someone live. They are more fundamental to life than a healthcare system.

[CandyFlipper]

It being a positive right is just a matter of fact, rather than opinion. The interesting question is whether the state should focus on both poisitive and negative freedoms, or only negative ones.