I am guessing you have some insight on this story:
"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."
If the opposite holds true on a larger number of heatlh vectors(life expectancy, infant mortality) etc… will that then prove to you universal care is superior?
No, since those factors are not primarily influenced by small changes in the quality of healthcare. They are more influenced by people’s behavior patterns.
I bring this up because andrewmc makes a huge deal about how well British hospitals supposedly do on a couple of parameters relative to the US. I always figured there was more to the story.
He has previously taken the position that deaths in one area are OK after a fashion since it is more cost effective to prevent them in another area and problematic to do both. I wonder if he will stay by that philosophy in this context, so I hope he engages.
I have to say ashayk, that I have been troubled by infant mortality differences until I read about the affect of our herculean efforts to save premature babies and affect of that process on infant mortality stats. Apparently such cases show up as infant mortality here, while they would likely show up as abortions in other countries.
Assuming this is true, that could amount to the entire difference.
Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe
Without knowing more details that could be very misleading.
For example, the most common cancer is skin cancer and it also has the highest survival rate. Since the U.S has areas where more people are susceptible (Florida, Arizona etc.) the higher prevalence of a mostly non-terminal cancer could inflate the stats and have relatively little to do with the availability of socialized medicine.
Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe
Without knowing more details that could be very misleading.
For example, the most common cancer is skin cancer and it also has the highest survival rate. Since the U.S has areas where more people are susceptible (Florida, Arizona etc.) the higher prevalence of a mostly non-terminal cancer could inflate the stats and have relatively little to do with the availability of socialized medicine.
No, no, no. It’s not something simple like that. It’s the socialized medicine that is the culprit. Just ignore the facts, like that Iceland and Sweden (#2 and #3 on Art’s list) spent 9.9% and 9.1% of GDP on health care, 83.4% and 84.9% funded by gov’t, and $4413 and $3532 per capita, respectively, as compared to the US’s 15.4%, 44.7% and $6096 (2004 numbers). Ours is clearly the superior system.
(Oh, the UK spent only 8.1% of GDP and $2899 per capita)
I don’t know if this is an accurate analysis or not, just that it makes a lot of sense.
That’s not good scientific thinking.
I’d also add to what someone else said about types of cancer (skin cancer, and it typically being non-terminal). At what age are people being diagnosed? 50 years ago, people simply died of “old age”. Now, we specifically diagnose everything. Perhaps there is a high incidence of people being diagnosed w/ cancer in their 70s/80s in these countries, and their bodies are shutting down anyways. I haven’t formulated much of an opinion on how healthcare should be run, but we should all take a look at ALL the information available. The OP’s argument appears to be fact-mining, which is a type of logical fallacy.
It is fair enough to point out that it is difficult to make sure you are making an apples to apples comparison when comparing numbers between countries. There is surely some noise here.
More interesting were the reactions to the study. The UK doctors don’t seem to think this is noise. They think long queues for medical care are decreasing survival rates. Again, that makes perfect sense.
Is this the last word? Of course not. It is some pretty good data, that I hope causes andrewmc to engage in the discussion. He is right there after all, and with some pretty strong opinions.
Well, if the docs think that, there may be something to it.
I’ve started looking at more of this stuff in the past year or 2. Healthcare is one messy pandora’s box. Personally, my insurance is free right now (thanks Army!), but if I ever have to pay for it, I’d rather not pay through the nose and not get my money’s worth. I was in corporate America for 3 years, and wasted approximately $3k/yr on insurance. My wife went to the doc for allergies once, our then-infant daughter went in 3 times. The only year it was worth it was when I had knee surgery.
I was in corporate America for 3 years, and wasted approximately $3k/yr on insurance. My wife went to the doc for allergies once, our then-infant daughter went in 3 times. The only year it was worth it was when I had knee surgery.
What if you were diagnosed with Cancer during that period of time? It might have been worth it then, perhaps. What if you were in a major accident? That is sort of how insurance works. You don’t get your money back if there is no claim.
Its not as if you get to keep that $3K in your pocket if we go the socialized medicine route. Instead of paying your insurance company, you are going to pay the federal government, who will then trickle some of that money back into the healthcare system. Just talking out of my ass, but I would imagine socialized medicine is going to cost way more than $3K per family.
The Federal Government is highly inefficient at doing just about anything, except protecting its citizens. Imagine going to the doctor’s office, and it is run like the local DMV or your local Social Security Office, or God-forbid–the Post Office. Generally the Fed doesn’t quite pay as well as the private sector either. It will be much harder for the Healthcare industry to attract talented doctors and nurses if salaries are not competitive with what these individuals could make if they choose a different career path.
Socialized medicine might be OK if you have a cough or if you break your leg. I would certainly not want to be diagnosed with cancer living in a country with socialized medicine. Things like 2nd opinions are a lot harder to come by. Look at how few MRI machines there are in the entire country of Canada. Per capita they have way fewer. That is an effect of Canada not having high quality top-end care.
The US would be much better off promoting a healthy/active lifestyle combined with tort reform and a way to minimize medical malpractice suits. Our system is certainly not perfect; however, there is no reason to completely change course.
I just find it very scary how much Mrs. Bill Clinton wants to involve the Fed in our lives when the Fed is pretty crappy at doing pretty much anything…
Since when is cancer survival the metric by which entire health systems are judged? Isn’t the point of socialized health care that more people have access to more varieties of normal health care, and not neccesarily that they have the most sophisticated treatments for relatively less common concerns?
“Since when is cancer survival the metric by which entire health systems are judged?”
I wouldn’t know, in part because I don’t think anyone has said that.
Andrewmc made clear to me earlier that he was happy to trade off greater cancer deaths for improved care elsewhere. I am really interested if he thinks he has gotten his wish and if that is really OK with him:
“If I have to sacrifice innovation to cure a specific type of breast cancer that will help 150,000 people each year versus making sure 100% of people with diabetes are cared for properly then I am willing to do that. All business is about tradeoffs and this is simply one that health care is faced with.” – andrewmc 7/22/07
Personally, I think that trade off is disgusting, but I really would like to see you or andrewmc or others who think that approach works for them step up to defend it.
England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.