US Cancer Survival Rate Among the Highest in the World
It appears that the best place to be for cancer care is the US -- you know, the country with the 42nd lowest life expectancy. All the media does is tout universal healthcare like that in the UK as something for the US to aspire to--but given the lower rates of cancer survival there, maybe that is not such wise advice. Take a look at this study on the poor cancer survival rates in the UK and the high ones in the US (Hat tip: Tim Worstall via Maggie's Farm):
The US is tops in cancer survival; I would think this analysis would be big news but I have yet to see a positive headline in a US newspaper. Am I missing something?
Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced....
England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.
Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.
The US is tops in cancer survival; I would think this analysis would be big news but I have yet to see a positive headline in a US newspaper. Am I missing something?
posted by Helen at 8:03 AM
49 Comments:
Hi. My name is Eugene Gershin. I'd like to welcome you to Obadiah Shoher's blog, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.
Obadiah is a pen name of a politician. He writes extremely controversial articles about Israel, the Middle East politics, and terrorism.
Obadiah advocates political rationalism instead of moralizing. He is economic liberal and political conservative.
Google refused advertising our site and Amazon deleted reviews of Obadiah's book. Nevertheless, Obadiah’s is the largest Jewish personal blog, read by more than 100,000 people monthly. 210,000 people from 81 countries downloaded Obadiah’s book. The blog was voted the best overall in People’s Choice: Jewish and Israeli blogs Awards, received Webby Honoree and other awards.
Please help us spread Obadiah's message, and mention the blog in one of your posts, or link to us. We would greatly appreciate your comments at www.samsonblinded.org/blog
Best wishes,
Eugene Gershin
Jewrusalem.net – Israeli Uncensored News
I am always amazed at healthcare statistics that are presented. There is so much deception out there, so many reasons why a particular statistic looks bad. And there is never any attempt by the press to clear things up and give us the complete story.
We simply have one of the best (certainly top 5) health care systems out there. And probably the best one if you take into account how many people are serviced by the system, young and old, wealthy and poor.
As an educator (psychology in fact)I also see the biases, political leanings and PC of the textbooks that are available to us. My jaw has hit the floor on numerous occasions.
Keep up the great blog...you are a daily read for me.
Classic quote from the article:
“Something’s wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
Talked to the source (at least his asst) - Dr. Murray gave a general interview as an expert in the field. Not in relation to the specific life expectancy study.
My guess is this quote relates to life expectancy something like engine size relates to gas mileage.
One thing Dr. Murray's asst said that brings up an interesting point.
He said that they were getting a number of calls and inquiries about that article - most of them assuming the worst and immediately attacking them.
What motivates people to hunt down a source and show no interest in sorting out the truth? Why call at all if you think the guy is ziphead?
Don't people connect their complaints about the current state of the media with the quotes they read?
Or do you have to be skewered by the media at least once to understand how often quotes are used out of context?
I think you kind of answered your own question--the media touts socialized health care, and this kind of information weakens public support for the scheme.
I'm surprised the study about wait times for chemotherapy--about two weeks here, 4-10 months in Canada and Europe--was reported at all.
This reminds me of the statement on the base of the tower at UT Austin: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." The journalism profession probably takes this as a mission statement. It could be interpreted as 'Here are the facts; what you do with them is your problem.' The MSM tends to look more at 'the make you free' part after Watergate. Thus, since they decided that national health insurance would 'make you free,' they will report facts which lead to that conclusion. Personally, I think the motto should be changed to: "Ye shall know the truth. Am I going to fast for you?"
Dr. Helen,
No, you're not missing anything. You simply stumbled on another instance of the mainstream media doing the careless job it so often does.
Socialised medicine, a tleast in canada is a failure of sorts. For example- the lady who gave birth to the 4 identcal twins hadto come t a hospital in the USA to give birth, becasue facilities werent available in the hospitals in Canada.
Personal experience- in the summer of '97, I showed up at an American University hospital ER complaining about migraines, seizures and failing vision. All symptoms had occured simultaneously. Well, at this Big-10 Univ Hospital, the ER Resident ordered a MRI exam rightaway,and within 45 minutes I was in a MRI machinne, being examined. And 30 minutes after that, I had 2 of thebest neurosurgeons and their teams at my bedside, discussing treatment options with me.
By contrast, I know someone in a Toronto suburb, whose wife, is very ill.Her Canadian GP thinks she has a cancerous brain tumor. And he has ordered a MRI exam. It has been 9 months since the GP ordered the MRI exam- she asnt beenable to secure a MRI appointment yet!!! And she has gotten sicker,and is probably going to pass away,by the time the Canadian system manages to get her into a MRI to get her brain scan.
That is the Canadian system for you. However, leftist-liberal journalists, academics and public intellectuals would like us to believe that the Canadian system i s the bestthing since sliced bread.
The only thing you're missing is the great, yawning vacuum between the ears that is so characteristic of today's media.
Brunettes rule,
Media drool.
:)
And you accuse liberals of being simplistic?
You're cherry picking a single indicator --- 1 --- out of dozens, maybe hundreds of data points, and using that one indicator to discredit universal health care? Really, that is just mind-numblingly stupid.
Please tell me this is a joke.
Plus there is an absurd strawman argument here. Since when is it that, "All the media does is tout universal healthcare like that in the UK as something for the US to aspire to"? I read two major newspapers a day--and yes, the evil liberal ones--read news online, listen to the radio, even--heaven forfend--NPR! I can't tell you the last time--if ever--I saw "the media" tout the English system as superior.
I realize there is something in your diagnosis that requires there to be a liberal bogeyman out there, but at least try harder to come up with a valid argument and not pull an absurd strawman out of thin air.
If and when you ever leave the safety of the good old USofA and set foot in one of those other lefty countries filled with muslim sympathizers, and IF you ever aquire direct experience of health care in one of those countries, I'll listen to what you have to say on the subject. Until then, cherry picking select statistics that "prove" that "America is the Greatest" is hardly the path to credibility, regardless of your credentials.
Speaking of cherry-picking statistics, the infant mortality/life expectancy statistic that is always thrown out is a perfect example. The more I look into it, the more that I see how superior US medical care actually makes us look worse. Many countries count babies as stillborn or not born that we count as infant mortalities. These numbers impact both our infant mortality rates and our life expectancy numbers.
Cancer kills a lot of people. It's one of the top causes of death aside from accidents/deliberate killings. It's a relevant and important statistic. I'd see your point if the topic were number of deaths due to leprosy or something else equally uncommon.
Heart disease kills lots of people and is relevant and important, too. So is life expectancy. So is cost as a proportion of GDP. So is patient satsifaction. So is preventive care. So are lots and lots of other things.
"We're #1 in cancer survival! Take that liberal media!" is not a serious argument. "We're #1 in cancer survival! In your face universal health care!" is not a serious argument.
Heart disease kills lots of people and is relevant and important, too. So is life expectancy. So is cost as a proportion of GDP. So is patient satsifaction. So is preventive care. So are lots and lots of other things.
So, are you saying all these factors go against our current system? I'm not sure, 'cause you're ratttling them off so quickly... it's not a very serious argument.
you know, the country with the 42nd lowest life expectancy.
It is actually the 42nd highest. There were 41 countries ahead of us on the list, of which they checked 222. I think ethnicity must be a factor. We are probably the most heterogenous society as far as genetics and diet.
patrick, I enjoyed that article on journalism.
Ernest, Chris and Blue - Why don't you share with us the benefits of socialized medicine and why the US should implement it. Have any of you lived in other countries?
I read two major newspapers a day--and yes, the evil liberal ones--read news online, listen to the radio, even--heaven forfend--NPR! I can't tell you the last time--if ever--I saw "the media" tout the English system as superior.
bullshit. We are--and have been ever since government health care has become a national issue--constantly told through numerous reports, in myriad ways, of the the superiority of the British and Canadian health systems. I can promise you the average person has NO idea how long the waits are, how just plain dirty the hospitals are--to the point where strep infections are a serious problem in GB--and how easy it is to skew statistics to make our system sound inferior. If I had a penny for every time somebody drags out that bogus "infant mortality" statistic. It's partly because we actually try to save babies that other countries give up on as a lost cause.
So why do people have no idea these things go on? Because the media doesn't report it. Now, does the media necessarily "tout" how great the other systems are? Maybe not. But they refuse to report how badly they suck. Same thing. They also refuse to report all the ways in which our system is superior. Same thing.
It's not a straw man. The simple truth is that if people were told how scary government health care is in those countries, and how they are going bankrupt, and even starting to allow private clinics to open up to serve people who can't get treatment, they would never want it here.
(Yes, there are people who can't get treatment in those countries. Supposedly the reason we need it here, ironically.)
Knoxwhirled pulls the following out of his ass:
"bullshit. We are--and have been ever since government health care has become a national issue--constantly told through numerous reports, in myriad ways, of the the superiority of the British and Canadian health systems."
Knox, find one recent article in, say, The New York Times, that cites the superiority of the British and Canadian systems. You won't. because you can't. The voices you and Mrs. Instarube imagine are in your head and not in the major media outlets.
I am not arguing for a particular system. Indeed, I would not want single payer health. I am merely pointing out that the Dr Hayseed here is fabricating a strawman--and indeed it is a strawman. And all knox does is burst into tears and double the strawman with more fabrication.
You people need to learn the basics of argumentation, which starts with actual facts, and not with "facts" you invent in your head. If you want to claim that the media is awash with reports of the superiority of the British and/or Canadian system, round up a few examples to make your point. But you can't, because you are inventing this wholesale.
charles: Knox, find one recent article in, say, The New York Times, that cites the superiority of the British and Canadian systems. You won't. because you can't.
The article right in front of your face suggests if only we had that great universal healthcare...
A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.
Great selective reading, serket. The very next sentence says, "But “it’s not as simple as saying we don’t have national health insurance,” said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not that easy.”
Nice try, but no. You people are really just this stupid, aren't you?
Let's not forget, folks, that the WHO rating of the US at 37th for health care was actually a rating for health care availability and not QUALITY.
"Knox, find one recent article in, say, The New York Times, that cites the superiority of the British and Canadian systems. You won't. because you can't. The voices you and Mrs. Instarube imagine are in your head and not in the major media outlets."
Seriously, are you people that desperate that this is all you can come up with?
Just off the top of my head, I recall seeing in the NYT's recently an article entitled, "The World's Best Medical Care?" that gave many reasons that US healthcare sucked, many times without qualifying information. For example, the article stated "We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick." However, the NYT's article does not mention that the US makes every attempt to save premature babies that other countries let die and this is why we have a high infant mortality rate.
And starting out the article with this tidbit: "Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week" tells one all you need to know about what the NYT's angle on healthcare is. Vote Democrat, it's your only hope!
You can find the article here
Dr. Hayseed cites a single editorial in the New York Times (and calls it an "article") as her proof that this is "all the media does." Another rube, just like her husband Gomer.
Charles, you got called out. Which is why you're resorting to name-calling and one-offs. Sorry...
Knox, nothing you or Dr. Hayseed or any of the other rubes here constitutes "calling me out." The original argument was a strawman, and it is still a strawman. I am calling her a hayseed because she is one, plain and simple. She doesn't even know what an editorial is. She doesn't know how to assemble facts. She relies on pure fallacy. This is like shooting fish in a bottle.
Maybe you and the other sycophants here are impressed with the "doctor," but PhD's in psychology are a dime a dozen. She's a rube, and you are a fool for looking up to her.
Charles Giacometti,
I one-upped you and now you're mad--boo hoo. And BTW, if you can get into Clinical or Applied PHD program (they take about eight or less people per year) do so, send me proof and I'll eat my words that not one of them would take you.
Giacometti, Heh. Thanks for the argument. And speaking of "Dr. Hayseed," I really think that's a nice compliment, but I digress. How about this for pretty forward as to the newspaperman's choice.
Giacometti:
Along with the MSM touting the advantages of Universal Health Care, proponents like Michael Moore, and damned near every Democratic Presidential Candidate have suggested that all of our woes would be cleared up instantly if we simply adopted it.
One question: When was the last time in your memory when the government moved in on an initiative and actually made it more effective?
Yes, Dr. Hayseed, graduate psychology programs are so selective.
Dream on.
GRE score for students intending to study psychology:
Verbal reasoning: 470 of 800, ranking 27th of 50 of all intended majors, and roughly the 50th percentile of all students taking the GRE.
Quantitative reasoning: 543 of 800, ranking 37th of 50 of all intended majors, and roughly the 35th percentile of all students taking the GRE.
Analytical writing: 4.5 of 6.0, ranking 17th of 50 of all intended majors, and the 54th percentile of all students taking the GRE.
Sources:
http://www.uwosh.edu/philosophy/gre-lsat.html
http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/994994.pdf
Oh, and the magical number eight Mrs. Instarube pulled out of thin air ("they take about eight or less people per year") is a complete fabrication. There are 233 clinical psychology PhD programs in the US, and they accept an average of 25 applicants per year. They accept, on average, more than 20% of candidates, which is not selective.
I am sure, though, when Mrs. Instarube and her husband Gomer are trying to impress people down in Bugtussle, fabricated numbers are very impressive.
Source: http://research.apa.org/doctoraled13.html
Clarification: The US health care system is rather good at rapid response and catastrophic care. It's a disaster when it comes to preventative care, maintenance of chronic illness & follow-up. We've got a bad record as far as informed consent is concerned.
The problem is (thank you, Hillary, Dubya, Newt, bill) we've managed to combined the worst aspects of socialized medicine with the worst aspects of privatized medicine.
The former (mostly through HMOs) provides caregivers a free pass when they screw up--unless it's really spectacular, of course. The latter creates a lot of centralized power. Power without responsibility is always bad news.
charles giacometti --
Hey! Mary's back.
Note the obviously spontaneous monikers talking to themselves.
Charles Giacometti,
With your poor math skills, you will never make it in research. The over 20% figure you pull out of thin air happens to be 16% and the median of the clinical programs is 11, close to my number. There are more professional psychology schools that have sprung up in recent years that do take more applicants. However, in past years, it was much more competitive:
http://research.apa.org/gs00tab12.pdf
And maybe they have had to dumb it down in recent years because the pay is poor, and the field has lost much of it's prestige due to it's PC nature and other problems.
But the ability to get into a doctoral PHD program is not the point (although if you would like to apply and send me confirmation of your personal acceptance to one of the clinical programs, I will still eat my words).
Your point was that I am a rube and others here should not "look up to me." That is your mistake. In your lefty blogger world, commenters seem to exist to mirror back in a narcissistic way to the host how smart and wonderful they are. That is not done here nor do people need to like me or agree with me, if they do so without ad hominem attacks which is what you have resorted to because you have nothing else. This is a discussion board and is supposed to be about ideas, not worship. I admit that I do not have anything terribly special that others should "look up to." Not everything is about "me, me, me." This blog is about ideas of freedom, limited government, personal responsibility and justice for all of us (including gasp! white men), not just selected special groups. What bothers you is that there are people out there who cannot be persuaded by lefty propaganda. Get used to it.
"This blog is about ideas of freedom, limited government, personal responsibility and justice for all of us (including gasp! white men)"
....well, isn't that nice. However, I don't see where this post fits in with any of those. Now if you'd mentioned biased idiotic mis-readings of the media you would've been on the money.
What bothers me is that you are indeed a rube who says things like, "All the media does is tout universal healthcare like that in the UK as something for the US to aspire to." This is a strawman. When challenged, you cited a single New York Times editorial that you incorrectly identified as an article. "All the media does" vs. a single editorial? You are too dumb to even understand how far your "evidence" fails to prove anything. You clearly don't even understand what a strawman fallacy is, as you even claimed with your "proof" that you "one-upped me" (complete with a fourth-grade taunt, "boo hoo"--how pathetic!)
Then I list a series of facts to disprove your assertion that a PhD program in psychology is as lofty as you claim, and you find one calculation among my evidence is wrong, and you declare victory. You ignore, for example, the pathetic GRE scores among you and your peers. You can comfort yourself all you want with your spin on it, but the big picture is clear--average and below average intellects dominate the profession you want your sycophants to believe is so selective.
You are a small person whose defensiveness about ideas other than your own reveals everything about your deeply ingrained anxieties about the world. Is it so terribly scary that the US health care system may be lacking in some ways? Why fall into simplistic, jingoistic reactions like you and your husband Gomer do? Your shrill, illogical reactions speak volumes about you. Like so many people in your profession, you need a practitioner of it much more than your clients need you.
Now I am done with you, and your sycophants here. Life is too short for me to deal with rubes like you. Imagine all you want that you "won." I am sure it is incredibly important to you.
Charles....
"Now I am done with you, and your sycophants here. Life is too short for me to deal with rubes like you."
Bye Bye...
cowboy: Let's not forget, folks, that the WHO rating of the US at 37th for health care was actually a rating for health care availability and not QUALITY.
Are you talking about the MSNBC article on life expectancy? I didn't see anything about that. While the figures may be accurate, it seems unlikely given the long waits in other countries for emergency care. Plus we have quick access to clinics.
I still don't see a single article in the way that CG asked for yet. So far just an editorial and a piece by a columnist.
It sounds like this will end up like the "ACLU denies Christians their rights" argument where supposedly there is a vast movement against Christians by the ACLU yet nobody can ever find a news piece on a single incident.
Wow... Charles has issues.
I am not a supporter of single payer or socialized medicine. My comment about the infant mortality statistics is that they falsely show US health care as being inferior. As others have pointed out, we try to save babies that many other countries don't try to save. We also count any birth where the baby is alive who then dies for any reason as an infant mortality where some countries don't count an infant as being born alive for 24 hours. I read a long article somewhere that described all of the different ways that infant mortality statistics are generated in different countries. It's astonishingly inconsistent and comparing the statistics is meaningless.
The infant mortality problem compounds the average life expectancy, too... if you average in 0 years of life for those infants we tried to save, you'll reduce average life expectancies.
And for the record, I've also noticed a strong bias towards UK/Canadian style health care in the media. But I'm not going to try to find all the articles. Sorry, Charlie. I'm sure you'd just raise the bar above whatever anyone found.
EI
Mark:
I don't want to try and parse Giacometti's verses, and maybe I could get another article. Have we looked at Paul Krugman's 'The Waiting Game' in the NY Times yet? Like a lot of things, you and I are faced with a 'sometimes the dots do connect in this way' kind of proposition and people might take different positions on that.
To quote the Liberal-appointed, and politicall liberal Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada "Access to a waiting list is not the same. thing as access to health care". Anyone who has had to live through a serious illness (themself or a loved one) in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Canukistan knows the truth of this statement. Canadians who have the good fortune to avoid hospitals, and have just enjoyed regular visits to the well-trained, polite, friendly and free GPs found in major Canadian cities are lucky enough not to understand.
The Canadian healthcare system works pretty well if you just need some checkups or have the occasional flu. It also works fine if you get carried into the ER having been shot or are having a heart attack. Anything else and you are doomed to wait in line until you die, get so sick they have to treat you or become a dope fiend while waiting 2 years for a new hip.
serket:
"Are you talking about the MSNBC article on life expectancy? I didn't see anything about that. While the figures may be accurate, it seems unlikely given the long waits in other countries for emergency care. Plus we have quick access to clinics."
No, sekret, I'm talking about the recent WHO survey that has been bandied about by the MSM as damning American health care because it only managed to be 37th in health care. Turns out that the standard used by WHO was distribution of health care, not quality.
Med care is good if you have cancer.
Lots of incredible doctors. Many "hopeless" cases cured, or at least a few years of life bought. A "team" of 6 different doctors with different disciplines prolonged my life.
We'll fix that as soon as nationalized "health care for all" is in place.
If you ever have another reader like "Charles" above, who challenges some basic characteristic of our current mass media--both by throwing out his own broad (contradictory and usually erroneous) assertions whilst simultaneoulsy demanding documentary proof of yours, may I suggest...
Your local library? These fellows think they can get away with this because they forget how easy it is to follow the record of the mass media.
Using the KCLS database source for The New York Times (ProQuest) I searched for "Universal Health Care". One of the first articles was this: Free Lunch On Health? Think Again
David Leonhardt. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 8, 2007. pg. C.1
Does it "tout" Great Britain as the great white hope of health care? Not as such. But it does take as a starting assumption that the socialized medicine model (top down, single payer, gov't controlled) they use is the one toward which all pols--left and right--ought to move the U.S. The only question is how.
Hope this helps--
There are not enough doctors now. I can only imagine there being less if a national health care is established. Way too much money for meds, doctors, nurses, etc. would be eaten alive by government personnel. Private industry is forced to do more with less in the current clime. The government, however, is constantly doing the opposite.
What is the cancer survival rate of an uninsured person in the USA?
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,裝潢,室內設計,室內設計室內設計公司
,搬家公司,搬家公司,台北搬家公司,搬家公司,室內設計
這一家租屋網免費刊登不用錢耶
搬家公司,健身,茶葉A片,SEO,SEO,SEO,motel,led手電筒,棧板,二胎,隔熱紙,照明,健身,a383,a383,,二手家具,a383,胸章,車燈,
文山搬家,兼職小姐,南港搬家,大安區搬家,松山搬家,中山區搬家,八里搬家,
五股搬家,
泰山搬家,大同區搬家,中正區搬家,士林搬家,萬華搬家,
台北搬家公司,台北搬家公司,客人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,加油棒,台中搬家公司,台北市搬家公司,台北縣搬家公司
台中美食
台北美食
新竹美食
桃園美食
台中美食小吃
台中美食餐廳
大台中美食網
台北美食餐廳
桃園美食餐廳
桃園美食網
新竹美食網
新竹美食餐廳
自慰情色貼圖微風成人論壇貼圖成人貼圖免費成人片觀賞熊貓貼圖0204貼圖區區在線a片情色視訊聊天室熊貓貼圖區嘟嘟貼圖區貼圖片區一葉情貼圖片區漫畫貼圖6k聊天室成人貼圖站貼圖區百分百貼圖色情貼圖免費aa片試看一葉情貼圖片區 av127
Post a Comment
<< Home