Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here's a link that ranks countries based on number of deaths per 100,000 from cancer. The UK and Canada have much lower death rates from cancer than we do. Canada wasn't even in the top sixteen.
Death from cancer statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
NationMaster. Jesus Christ.
Why don't you try getting a REAL source that actually breaks down the numbers instead of throwing them at you raw with no explanations or background?
U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA
THIS study has been published in Lancet Oncology, but if you want to believe that NationMaster knows more about cancer rates than they do, you go right on ahead. Tinfoil's a good look for you.
Here's a link that ranks countries based on number of deaths per 100,000 from cancer. The UK and Canada have much lower death rates from cancer than we do. Canada wasn't even in the top sixteen.
Death from cancer statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
NationMaster. Jesus Christ.
Why don't you try getting a REAL source that actually breaks down the numbers instead of throwing them at you raw with no explanations or background?
U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA
THIS study has been published in Lancet Oncology, but if you want to believe that NationMaster knows more about cancer rates than they do, you go right on ahead. Tinfoil's a good look for you.
The Lancet is not a problem, but I'm going to have to see that data for myself, and not hear it from the opportunist Betsy McCaughey. She's as qualified to be an authority on Oncology or Oncology research, as Andrew Dice Clay is to be a Catholic Priest.
I guess she decides on her feelings of the moment, as to which side she's on. She and Lieberman should be friends.
Here's a link that ranks countries based on number of deaths per 100,000 from cancer. The UK and Canada have much lower death rates from cancer than we do. Canada wasn't even in the top sixteen.
Death from cancer statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
NationMaster. Jesus Christ.
Why don't you try getting a REAL source that actually breaks down the numbers instead of throwing them at you raw with no explanations or background?
U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA
THIS study has been published in Lancet Oncology, but if you want to believe that NationMaster knows more about cancer rates than they do, you go right on ahead. Tinfoil's a good look for you.
The Lancet is not a problem, but I'm going to have to see that data for myself, and not hear it from the opportunist Betsy McCaughey. She's as qualified to be an authority on Oncology or Oncology research, as Andrew Dice Clay is to be a Catholic Priest.
I guess she decides on her feelings of the moment, as to which side she's on. She and Lieberman should be friends.
NationMaster. Jesus Christ.
Why don't you try getting a REAL source that actually breaks down the numbers instead of throwing them at you raw with no explanations or background?
U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA
THIS study has been published in Lancet Oncology, but if you want to believe that NationMaster knows more about cancer rates than they do, you go right on ahead. Tinfoil's a good look for you.
The Lancet is not a problem, but I'm going to have to see that data for myself, and not hear it from the opportunist Betsy McCaughey. She's as qualified to be an authority on Oncology or Oncology research, as Andrew Dice Clay is to be a Catholic Priest.
I guess she decides on her feelings of the moment, as to which side she's on. She and Lieberman should be friends.
Obviously, you were good with the NationMaster stats, because you didn't seem to have an issue with those states, right? Sounds just like a person who thinks with only the left side of their brain.
NationMaster. Jesus Christ.
Why don't you try getting a REAL source that actually breaks down the numbers instead of throwing them at you raw with no explanations or background?
U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA
THIS study has been published in Lancet Oncology, but if you want to believe that NationMaster knows more about cancer rates than they do, you go right on ahead. Tinfoil's a good look for you.
The Lancet is not a problem, but I'm going to have to see that data for myself, and not hear it from the opportunist Betsy McCaughey. She's as qualified to be an authority on Oncology or Oncology research, as Andrew Dice Clay is to be a Catholic Priest.
I guess she decides on her feelings of the moment, as to which side she's on. She and Lieberman should be friends.
Insofar as Lancet Oncology has a website, and the article included its sources, most with links, perhaps you could spend a little time "seeing those stats" instead of desperately trying to discredit the person reporting on the stats. No one said she was an "authority", you partisan twit. It's not actually required simply to write an article reporting the findings of the ACTUAL authorities.
Are your socks wet? Because you're knee-deep in de-Nile.
I decided to do a little research on cancer survival rates, and it turns out USA is # 1.
Why the Scientocracy Won’t Work
Thursday, July 10, 2008, 10:52 AM
Wesley J. Smith
Regular readers of SHS know that I am critical of the trend to let “the scientists” decide what is ethical and what our public policies should be. That not only subverts science by mutating it into an ideology or social movement rather than a method (scientism), but is nuts because scientific “facts” often change at breakneck speed.
Example: A new report from Australian astronomers warning of global cooling.
The Lancet is not a problem, but I'm going to have to see that data for myself, and not hear it from the opportunist Betsy McCaughey. She's as qualified to be an authority on Oncology or Oncology research, as Andrew Dice Clay is to be a Catholic Priest.
I guess she decides on her feelings of the moment, as to which side she's on. She and Lieberman should be friends.
Obviously, you were good with the NationMaster stats, because you didn't seem to have an issue with those states, right? Sounds just like a person who thinks with only the left side of their brain.
YES INDEED! I did read the NationMaster stats (old-school sarcasm), just like I got to the name of the author and "authority" on oncology statistics. (And that's all I read of that bullshit) BTW...what the hell is NationMaster? It could be about frigging one's way through the nation....as I've NEVER FUCKING HEARD OF IT!
No, I'm a right-brained thinker. And that has not one damned thing to do with politics. Ask Ms. Beadle at your old prairie school, and she'll tell you the same.
No, I want to read the statistics...written and published by ACTUAL PHYSICIANS. Some of you act like an MD or DO is just handed out at Big Lots. Do you work in the medical field? Do you understand how complex the human body is?
You do understand that it isn't like a toilet, right? Most of the time, the water won't go down because it needs to be plunged. For every disease, there are hundreds of presentations. And Dr. McCaughey, with her pHd, would crap her pants the first time she witnessed a shotgun blast, subdural hematoma, degloving injury, projectile vomiting secondary to an unrestrained driver's head penetrating a windshield.
I will make my point, AGAIN!!! I don't want to read the edited version of someone who be incapable of finding her ass with both hands in a medical situation. Most physicians won't be found snooping around Hudson Institute either. Hopefully, the majority of them went to medical school to care for patients....not win elections.
Love,
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ingalls
Nice cherry picked stats.
Now post a cost comparison and rate cost increase comparison with 10 year cost projections.
It isn't personal; it's business. Feelings are irrelevent in business." So I suppose if that's what
you're comfortable with....okay. And by quoting her, I am not suggesting that all conservatives
feel this way. This is just how it has been explained to me.
1) Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
US has the highest percentage of survival (per chart) Does it specify which types of cancer in the article?
Not all cancers have the same survival rate. Pancreatic cancer-very high mortality rate.
Prostate survival rates-much higher. In the allotted time frame, did Canada have more
patients with cancers with higher mortality rates?
2) Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
US-highest percentage again. Since everyone in both countries have healthcare, they're
all going to see a doctor for the three P's of diabetes (polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia).
Of course it's going to be quicker in the US, because so many people are without insurance.
I would love to see a study of all the homeless and uninsured who have diabetes.
The results are probably staggering. And I realize that this was one of many
concerns that people had with a one-payer system (the wait times). So, if you're too
poor to seek care in this country or you're uninsured, you're shit out of luck? If you're okay
with that...then okay.
3)Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month-
US number one. Do we have more specialists than the other two countries?
Doesn't it depend on the specialty. OBGYN is a lengthy wait in this country
due to the massive amount these physicians have to pay for malpractice
insurance. So we don't have too many. We also have a shortage of
radiologists. But I think it comes down again to-who can afford it,
and who can't. We have more uninsured and fewer
who can afford...thus less wait time.
If the US were to change to say "Medicare for all", people would flood doctor's offices. They would suddenly be able to
get an assessment to find out why they've had headaches every day for the last 2 years-
where before they sucked it up and took some ibuprofen, instead of finding out that
their blood pressure is 230/140. Or maybe get that mole checked that used to be brown, but now looks
like a crushed cranberry.
I understand the business side of it-the cost concerns. Do you really feel comfortable knowing
that people as we type right now, are walking around with diabetes-
with the feet rotting off due to neuropathy...which will ultimately
lead to a probable amputation?
So I guess it depends on whether you're a moron liberal (feel bad for the less fortunate), or are heartless bastard conservative (more concerned about the costs and personal inconvenience). It's too bad that we can't come to an agreement on this.
It isn't personal; it's business. Feelings are irrelevent in business." So I suppose if that's what
you're comfortable with....okay. And by quoting her, I am not suggesting that all conservatives
feel this way. This is just how it has been explained to me.
Your friend is right. It isn't personal. It is business. It doesn't bother me to say that is the way it is. It's the truth. It doesn't matter whether or not you suggest that all conservatives feel this way.
1) Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
US has the highest percentage of survival (per chart) Does it specify which types of cancer in the article?
Not all cancers have the same survival rate. Pancreatic cancer-very high mortality rate.
Prostate survival rates-much higher. In the allotted time frame, did Canada have more
patients with cancers with higher mortality rates?
Doesn't really matter. Cancer survival rates are just that. Different types of cancers may have slight variations in percentage of population affected from one country to another, but not significant enough to skew statistical data as a rule.
How does the portion I bolded fit into your take on this particular issue? People don't typically seek medical care for the 3 P's. Diabetes is usually detected in a routine exam, without the patient having had any symptoms.
OB-gyn isn't a lengthy wait due to malpractice insurance costs. Those who have no insurance often qualify for Medicaid or seek medical care in publicly funded facilities.
I'm thinking you probably don't work in health care, because you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.
I understand the business side of it-the cost concerns. Do you really feel comfortable knowing
that people as we type right now, are walking around with diabetes-
with the feet rotting off due to neuropathy...which will ultimately
lead to a probable amputation?
People whose feet are rotting off (and hint- it's not due to neuropathy) are not typically undiagnosed diabetics, but rather non-compliant diabetics.
So I guess it depends on whether you're a moron liberal (feel bad for the less fortunate), or are heartless bastard conservative (more concerned about the costs and personal inconvenience). It's too bad that we can't come to an agreement on this.
What it boils down to is that nobody owes you health care. If you insist on calling people who can see reality "heartless bastards" then throw out your labels- it really doesn't matter. The poor in this country get better health care than the rich in other countries around the world. Not because it is owed to them, but because this country has been historically the most prosperous in the recent history of mankind. If that's not good enough for you, then give all your worldly possessions away, take up your cross, and save the world. Most of us can't afford to. We have bills to pay and families to take care of.
Diabetes complications include nerve damage and poor blood circulation. These problems make the feet vulnerable to skin sores (ulcers) that can worsen quickly and are difficult to treat. Proper diabetes management and careful foot care can help prevent foot ulcers.
Dr. Florence Jones, director of the Healthcare for the Homeless Medical Clinic in New Orleans, said the homeless population has a higher rate of diabetes than the population at large. Many do not have the funds necessary for proper medical care, photo IDs needed to secure Medicaid or Medicare or anything remotely resembling a healthy lifestyle.
A lot of the homeless dont know they have diabetes until its too late and manifests itself into serious complications, she said. Those who know they are diabetic tend not to take care of themselves due to mental illness and that can result in many of the amputations you see.
Diabetic Amputations Common Problem Among the Homeless in Louisiana - Health News - redOrbit
Source: redOrbit (Diabetic Amputations Common Problem Among the Homeless in Louisiana - Health News - redOrbit)
It was just that....a joke. Well, I responded to your inaccuracies and diatribe, but I'm not going to re-write it. But I will point out, again, that you are wrong about obgyn-the wait times, shortages, and malpractice insurance being one of the biggest reasons:
OB-GYN shortage on NBC news
The Ob-Gyn Shortage: The Burden
Insurance Costs Could Trigger Ob/Gyn Shortage
Insurance Costs Could Trigger Ob/Gyn Shortage
There are hundreds more, if you'd like to look.
Diabetes- how to prevent amputation:
Diabetes complications include nerve damage and poor blood circulation. These problems make the feet vulnerable to skin sores (ulcers) that can worsen quickly and are difficult to treat. Proper diabetes management and careful foot care can help prevent foot ulcers.
Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Pathogenesis and Management - November 1, 2002 - American Family Physician
Neuropathy is often a predisposing factor to ulceration and amputation.]
Dr. Florence Jones, director of the Healthcare for the Homeless Medical Clinic in New Orleans, said the homeless population has a higher rate of diabetes than the population at large. Many do not have the funds necessary for proper medical care, photo IDs needed to secure Medicaid or Medicare or anything remotely resembling a healthy lifestyle.
A lot of the homeless don’t know they have diabetes until it’s too late and manifests itself into serious complications, she said. Those who know they are diabetic tend not to take care of themselves due to mental illness and that can result in many of the amputations you see.
Diabetic Amputations Common Problem Among the Homeless in Louisiana - Health News - redOrbit
Source: redOrbit (Diabetic Amputations Common Problem Among the Homeless in Louisiana - Health News - redOrbit)
Yes, this is just New Orleans, but I would venture to say that that nationwide (in big cities) that many of the amputations are from the homeless.
We find many diabetics in EMS, as we regularly check glucose levels. Many have no idea, until we reveal to them that their glucose is 400. Many are homeless, and haven't seen a physician in years. Many of them just do not have the wherewithal to seek gov't. assistance. And I don't mean that in a financial sense.
If one can't get their brain to function beyond their next drink, or fix, or they haven't bathed in 3 months...well.....I would be a little self-conscious to walk into a room full of people and ask for help. Fortunately we have advocates for that.
Surely, if you're in healthcare, you've seen.....uhm.....maggots in homeless (and sometimes not homeless) patient's decubitus ulcers. So my belief is that there is little difference between non-compliance, and untreated.
It's pretty difficult to find a non-biased cancer survival rate chart. Many of them, including Lancet, have egg on their faces. Check out their background. And please make sure that you take the time to read and understand what I'm trying to say, when I'm "labeling". If you'll notice, I "labeled" both liberals and conservatives, to make a point. That is that I'm moderate, and that both "sides" like to label each other with unoriginal, insulting names.
Nah nah, boo boo. I don't care if you care whether or not I care. I'm trying to be civil, and bridge divides. But some of you prefer to enter in a urinating competition, rather than try to understand where the other side is coming from. If you treat me like a human being, I'll do the same. Get over the joke that you didn't get from the religion boards.
K...done with this.
1) Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
US has the highest percentage of survival (per chart) Does it specify which types of cancer in the article?
Not all cancers have the same survival rate. Pancreatic cancer-very high mortality rate.
Prostate survival rates-much higher. In the allotted time frame, did Canada have more
patients with cancers with higher mortality rates?
I've found you can cherry pick statistics to support just about any conclusion. One of the biggest problems in comparing heath statistics between different countries is the statistics are generated by different studies whose collections methods make them non-comparable.Thought these were rather interesting for those of you who insist we have a crisis and simply must enact, single payer, government run health care.
There are actually two messages here. The 1st is very interesting, but the 2nd is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
Check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is: a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt................... 38%
Taft................................... 40%
Wilson.............................. 52%
Harding........................... 49%
Coolidge......................... 48%
Hoover............................. 42%
F. Roosevelt................... 50%
Truman............................ 50%
Eisenhower.................... 57%
Kennedy......................... 30%
Johnson.......................... 47%
Nixon............................... 53%
Ford.................................. 42%
Carter............................... 32%
Reagan............................ 56%
GH Bush......................... 51%
Clinton............................. 39%
GW Bush......................... 55%
Obama..................... 8%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
Nice cherry picked stats.
Now post a cost comparison and rate cost increase comparison with 10 year cost projections.
I'm sure it costs more here. It really shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a basic understanding of economics that better quality generally costs more.
A key insight from the simultaneous comparison of quality and RRU [relative resource use] in the scatter plots is that utilization and quality are poorly correlated. More use of resources, such as inpatient bed days or procedures, can actually be associated with poorer quality; thus, it is important to consider both resource use and quality. Many people find this to be counterintuitivein most fields, buyers can reasonably expect you get what you pay for to apply: buying more of a good or service, or paying a higher price, typically brings better results. That many plans fall in the upper right or lower right quadrant of the scatter plots suggests that the association between quality and cost does not follow the belief that more is betterat least, not in health care.
It shouldnt take you long to read the whole report (its mostly slides), but I went ahead and remade some of the charts for you to see. They are baffling. For each of these, youre looking at the price, or what was charged to the insurer (this did not include Medicare in the US). Lets start with a CT scan of the head:
Why does it cost so much more in the US? Does the radiation work better here? Are the scanners different? If youre wondering, the CT scanner was invented in the UK, so its not like theres some reason to believe our machines are better.
How about MRIs?
Once again, its the most expensive here.
Lets be clear. I have no problem with things costing more when they are demonstrably better. Or, if youre getting more of them for your money. But a scan is a scan is a scan. There had better be a good reason for it costing more here, and I cant think of a good one.
Forget scans. Lets try out a procedure. How about a normal infant delivery?
Theres nothing wrong with paying for quality. But remember we have the highest infant and maternal mortality of comparable countries. And yet we are paying nearly double what the next nearest country is. This is just the cost of the hospital and physician, so dont blame the government or the insurance companies or the drug companies.
Lets take an easy procedure. How about an appendectomy?
WTF? Its an appendectomy! What do we imagine we are providing for all that money? Why can everyone else do it cheaper? [...]
