Some telling statistics about the state of U.S. health care

[mskafka]

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.

 

[Meister]

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.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

 

[mskafka]

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.

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 ******* 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

 

[mskafka]

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.

Twit? Oooooh, that's original. You should try some more like: Idiot, moron (or moran if you prefer like that Rhodes Scholar in the do-rag), dumbass, shoemaker, workhorse.... I somehow seriously doubt that you've delved into those stats, yourself. It's more interesting to fight with someone that FEW SERIOUS people, take seriously.

I'm partisan? You make Anne Coulter look like Jerry Falwell. You didn't see my earlier comparison of another "expert" right wingnut to Michael Moore? Nope. It's just more fun to insult, and read comic books, and listen to comedians...which is essentially what you're quoting from.

 

[mskafka]

No..never mind. Lancet has a less-than-stellar past, so this WILL take some deeper digging. If McCaughey is going to shit in the road, she needs to be smart enough to cover it up, so that those behind her don't step in it.

Ya think this woman had nothing to lose by healthcare reform? THINK AGAIN!

She's actually quite bold, and repulsive.

 

[mskafka]

It seems as though we can't get past the bull$hit or financial agendas to get an accurate ranking.

 

[mskafka]

1. Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

I decided to do a little research on cancer survival rates, and it turns out USA is # 1.

This man makes national and international cancer survival research sound like a crossword that can be solved while dropping a deuce.

And what does he quote???
LANCET....YES! Dr. McCaughney's source. He probably plagiarized McCaughney's blog...but hey, who's looking?

Is he a physician-such as an oncologist or pathologist? Is he a chemist, biologist, microbiologist, or any other scientist who works in a laboratory? Why NO! He's an attorney.

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.

So this same man who says that we have the best cancer treatment in the world (not doubting....just quoting), trusts SCIENTISTS in the US to do the best work in the world on cancer....but not anything else? So the rest of them just don't know what they're talking about.

I'll BET YA....he doesn't really believe that. But I'll bet that his wallet depends on OTHERS believing that.

He's published at LEAST 13 books; some of which appear to aid in knowledge of ambulance chasing. Thanks, Wes. And people wonder why there is DEFENSIVE MEDICINE.

Yes he has agendas: Attention, media, and money.

Strike one!

(still working on "doctor" betty) She has a longer and nastier past.

 

[Meister]

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 ******* 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

Oh, Ms. Ingalls....I was just making an observation on why you didn't respond to Auditor's source as you did with Cecilie's source?
I just know it had to be an issue with you....although it seemed it wasn't.

Sincerely,
Ben Cartwright

 

[Ropey]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjdRgBAY278]Bonanza Theme Song - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jackson]

Nice cherry picked stats.

Now post a cost comparison and rate cost increase comparison with 10 year cost projections.

No. State where this poster was wrong. It should demonstrate due diligence on the part of the present medical field.

 

[lizzie]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

 

[mskafka]

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.

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

[quoteNeuropathy is often a predisposing factor to ulceration and amputation.][/quote]

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. It was just that....a joke.

K...done with this.

 

[lizzie]

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. It was just that....a joke.

K...done with this.

No diatribe here, just pointing out some errors. Some of the points in your post pretty much back my position up.

 

[niteowl]

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?

You may have a point - Japan has much higher rates of stomach cancer compared to the US, for instance - but, in the case of Prostate cancer, mortality rates in the UK are more than six times what they are in the US. A primary reason for this, is that survival depends in large measure on early detection. That's why, in the US, more than half of all males over the age of 50 have had a PSA test performed. In the UK, it's only about 5%. You might wonder why that would be - after all, the UK has socialized medicine, and a PSA test is relatively cheap. The answer is simple: a PSA test isn't definitive. It won't tell you whether or not you have cancer. It only suggests who is likely to have cancer. To be certain, you have to have other tests performed, such as sampling biopsies. So, in England, they don't routinely do the cheap test, because that would lead to a large number of expensive tests, and they obviously feel it's not worth the expense. They prefer to wait until the patient actually exhibits symptoms; that way, an accurate diagnosis can be made, without any expensive tests at all.

The obvious problem with that approach, of course, is that by the time you exhibit symptoms, it may already be too late to save your life. That explains the higher survival rates in the US.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

Do you have a link?

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

The cost of our system (i.e. the amount we're shelling out on it every year) is primarily a function of two things: the per unit prices we pay and service utilization. Neither one is necessarily particularly well correlated with quality.

For instance, in the State of Health Care Quality report they released last year, the National Committee for Quality Assurance noted:

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 counterintuitive—in 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 better—at least, not in health care.

Similarly, a flashback to Aaron Caroll ruminating on the International Federation of Health Plans’ Annual Comparative Price Report last year in "Everything costs more."

It shouldn’t take you long to read the whole report (it’s mostly slides), but I went ahead and remade some of the charts for you to see. They are baffling. For each of these, you’re looking at the price, or what was charged to the insurer (this did not include Medicare in the US). Let’s 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 you’re wondering, the CT scanner was invented in the UK, so it’s not like there’s some reason to believe our machines are better.

How about MRI’s?

Once again, it’s the most expensive here.

Let’s be clear. I have no problem with things costing more when they are demonstrably better. Or, if you’re 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 can’t think of a good one.

Forget scans. Let’s try out a procedure. How about a normal infant delivery?

There’s 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 don’t blame the government or the insurance companies or the drug companies.

Let’s take an easy procedure. How about an appendectomy?

WTF? It’s an appendectomy! What do we imagine we are providing for all that money? Why can everyone else do it cheaper? [...]

 

[niteowl]

@Greenbeard -

There are several reasons common tests and procedures cost more in the US.

One is convenience. Yes, I realize that's a stupid thing to pay for, and it's undoubtedly largely because most people have insurance; when you're not paying for the service directly, you tend not to question how much it costs. So, every hospital (in the US) will have their own CT scan, or MRI, even though they don't see that much use. Because they are less utilized, the hospital has to charge a higher rate per each use, to recoup the cost. By contrast, I live in Chiangmai - Thailand's second largest city, at around 2 million people. Here, there's only one MRI in the entire city (that I'm aware of), so everyone has to go to that hospital to have an MRI done. They schedule the time on that machine very tightly - you're told precisely when you have to show up, to have your time on the machine. Cost: about $300.

American hospitals also have to factor in the cost of malpractice insurance; in many of the countries you've mentioned, I would wager that a malpractice lawsuit is not allowed. Last year, there was a case of a very young (I think, 9 years old) girl who had been misdiagnosed by her doctor, about a complaint she had with her eye. Her doctor was giving her eye drops, when she actually had a very serious condition, that went untreated, until it was too late to save the eye. She now has just an empty socket, where her eye used to be. The local newspapers carried her picture, with her eye socket uncovered; she was trying to get the government (it was a government hospital) to give her some money. Gruesome.

Hospitals also have to cover the cost of unsponsored health care. That happens when, the patient has sufficient resources to pay for the original procedure, but something has gone wrong, and now extraordinary measures have to be taken to preserve the patients life/well-being. The patient had sufficient resources (cash and/or insurance) to pay for the original treatment, but not enough to cover the cost of the extraordinary measures that had to be taken in the aftermath. Every hospital has a small number of cases like that every year, but in America, you can't be told, "Tough luck. Go home."
That's your fate in some countries, and obviously, that's going to cost a lot less.

 

[KissMy]

People just need to shop around. That is why HSA insurance plans are cheaper.