That's what we're saying

That's what we're saying

That's what we're saying.

That's what we're saying.

And so do the poor and middle-class. I've seen it with my own eyes many, many times.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

How is universal healthcare going to fix that? BTW, I see that happening very little here except for illegal immigrants. I heard the military was thinking about having a $10 charge or something because they had so many people going in for a tiny sniffle that people who actually needed a doctor (an ear infection for instance) were forced to use the emergency room. I did that myself on more than one occasion. Being up all night and starting to hit redial at the instant the phones opened only to be told after getting through 45 minutes later that all the appointments were taken. Then sitting for three hours in the ER so I could get a 5 minute appointment for some antibiotic. That was the norm, not the exception.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I agree. Look at the data, not propaganda or op-eds that throw out misleading numbers.

The author seems to be comparing the overall 5-year survival rate in Britain (actually 80% as of a few years ago) with the Stage 1 survival rate in the U.S., which of course is much higher than the overall rate of 87% by the most recent stats.

U.S. overall 5-year rate, Page 7:

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/...FPWSecured.pdf

Figure 3.1, 5-year overall survival rate in England/Wales, based on diagnosis' from 2001-2003.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can.../?a=5441#stage

To summarize, survival rates:

U.S. 5-year: 87%
U.S. 10-year: 77%
U.S. 20-year: 52%

(from the chart)
U.K. 5-year: 80%
U.K. 10-year: ~71%
U.K. 20-year: ~63%

Thus, The U.S. has a marginally better 5 or 10-year survival rate but a lower long-term 20-year rate.

To get an idea of what the Stage 1 survival rate is in Britain, data from the West Midlands section of Britain reveals it to be about 90% but this is based on much older data from diagnosis' beginning in 1985-1989. A safe assumption is that this numbers has increased given the fact that overall survival rates have improved significantly over time there.

Figure 3.3:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can.../?a=5441#stage

By comparing the Stage 1 rate (early state) in the U.S. with the overall rate in Britain, the author is being sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.

They've fallen substantially in Britain too. I'm not sure what the point is.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=575

The data unfortunately shows at most only marginal differences between the U.S. and Britain, not including the 45-50 million Americans uninsured.

Another measure of the effectiveness of a healthcare system is life expectancy. Notice all the countries above the U.S.. But at least we're still 1 year above Cuba (take that Michael Moore).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

The U.S. system is incredibly inefficient and at most marginally more effective than other industrialized countries. Uninsured Americans generally don't see a doctor until it's too late. Something like universal coverage would improve the survival rates further to the point where we might see real results for the high price per capita or GDP that is spent. The U.S. could do better at preventive medicine too. Not much money in that, though.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

If the assertion by some on this thread that the uninsured get treatment on the taxpayer dime anyway (not a correct assertion), then why are they so opposed to universal coverage?

Whenever a Republican quotes a price tag on a universal healthcare plan, it's unlikely they are accounting for the fact that taxpayers already pay ER care for the uninsured, the cost savings of preventive care and increased productivity of healthy workers (albeit difficult to measure).

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

DO you have some evidence that the Brits receive substandard cancer treatment? A probable explanation for the differing short term cancer survival rate is that ALL British citizens receive primary care and so their cancers are more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage. The most deadly cancers are the varieties that are aggressive and fast growing. My guess: more British in this study have these aggressive types of cancer or more of them are diagnosed at early stages rather than at stage 2 or ...

You can continue to call the evidence "propaganda".. I don't know how you can avert your gaze from the cold hard fact that Americans spend more than any country in the world ,to provide excellent health care to ONLY some of the population while leaving the less fortunate with their "preexisting conditions" and bankruptcies. We have a system that is an unfair, inefficient historical accident . Of course, it works for some.

Lower survival rates as produced in the article is evidence.

All citizens do receive primary care, which means if anything their rates should be higher since some poor citizens won't be diagnosed until it's too late. Diagnosing at an early stage should equal higher survival rates, that it doesn't shows how lower quality their care is. They find it sooner and they still don't survive at the same rate.

That's some assumption, Brits have more aggressive cancers than Americans. Why this assumption? Evidence? Personally I expect the opposite due to American eating habits.

Moore doesn't provide evidence, he provides propoganda. This is no different than his other propoganda films.

Our system doesn't cover those who screw up in life. One more reason to keep our system in place and instead work to cover those who did the right things in life but don't have coverage. I have yet to see a convincing argument why I or anyone else should pay for someone else's drug addictions, bad habits and otherwise horrible decision making in their lives.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

your response, I see that you have no evidence that Brits receive substandard care. I would say that the article you offer up as evidence supporting the U.S. health care system is about as clear as mud- and you accuse Moore of disseminating propaganda!

"our system doesn't cover those who screw up in life"?? Where does that bit of mean spirited propaganda come from? Our system does not cover people like my neighbor- she works too much to be medicaid eligible but earns too little to spend $600- $1000 a month on insurance. Or how about my friend, Paul, a hard-working fisherman, who was making the final payments on his boat when he came down with "restless leg syndrome". Unfortunately, the problem, unbelievably, turned out to be brain cancer. His treatment ,which cost tens of thousands, extended his life a few months. My Dad was a V.P. of a major corporation till he got sacked at the age of 60. When he started his consulting business, he was shocked to find that the health insurance co. would not provide coverage for my step mom's breast cancer. [pre-existing condition] Only the truly arrogant can beleive that they will never be on the losing end of this health care system.

There are several ways to interpret the fact that the U.S. has marginally better 5-year survival rates (87% vs 80% for breast cancer) but lower 20-year survival rates and yours is as good as any. Another possibility has to do with the aggressiveness of the treatment methods. U.S. methods might use heavier chemo, which is better in the short-term but could have negative long-term effects, as perhaps evident by the lower 20-year survival rates. I had a family member who opted for a U.K.-based program that mixed lighter chemo with a comprehensive nutrition plan, which U.S. doctors tend to steer clear from. Perhaps marginally less effective in the short-term but less damaging to the body's other functions overall. This is only based on personal observation of a single case so take that for what it is.

Survival rates (as posted above):

U.S. 5-year: 87%
U.S. 10-year: 77%
U.S. 20-year: 52%

(from the chart)
U.K. 5-year: 80%
U.K. 10-year: ~71%
U.K. 20-year: ~63%

U.S. overall 5-year rate, Page 7:

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/...FPWSecured.pdf

Figure 3.1, 5-year overall survival rate in England/Wales, based on diagnosis' from 2001-2003.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can...rvival/?a=5441

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

It's incomprehensible to me that any thinking person could possibly believe that the government is a solution the healthcare problems of the US. Stop and think. Is it in any way possible for everyone to have the very best healthcare?

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Yes, indeed, which is clear evidence to support another great reason for universal healthcare. The enormous per capita and per GDP advantage we have could go a longer way than the few percentage points difference in short-term survival rates.

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/...FPWSecured.pdf

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003