He said "should". But I don't see a correlation between early diagnosis and government healthcare. If that was the case, the US wouldn't have the best survival rate esp. considering our gluttonous society.

There's quite a few other things associated with the poor besides lack of healthcare coverage - like obesity, smoking, poor education, poor diet... Regardless of financial status, women find having their breasts squashed into a pancake distasteful. At least with a colonoscopy you can opt to be asleep during the procedure.

__________________
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.

The causation, as stated in the cancer.org link, is between lack of full health insurance coverage and lack of early diagnosis. Universal coverage would provide for earlier diagnosis for the uninsured and underinsured, thus improving survival rates. Our marginally higher overall survival rates are loosely correlated with per capita or per share of GDP spending as compared with other countries. It's loosely correlated because for example we spend about 2.5 times that of the U.K. yet see only marginal improvements. The U.K. actually spends much less than most industrialized nations. The U.S. would see further improvements to the survival rates with universal health coverage and the U.K. would see improvements with more per capita spending.

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

Quote:
A lack of health insurance is associated with lower survival among breast cancer patients. Moreover, breast cancer patients with lower incomes are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage of the disease and to have lower 5-year relative survival rates than higher-income patients.

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

This is independent of the clear link between lack of health coverage and lack of early diagnosis which has an effect of lowering the overall survival rates.

__________________
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

You disappoint me , 12th: the above comment is not only insulting but completely lacking substance. Have you anything to support your position? Government only pays for health care, it does not provide it. I don't hear many of the elderly complaining about Medicare. Government pays for health care far more efficiently than the private sector; ask your senator if he likes his health plan. Our current system funnels a large % of healthcare dollars to investors who look for "products" with the highest "medical loss ratio" (that is, the highest ratio of dollars NOT spent on providing actual health care). Another large percentage of our health care spending compensates the bloated overhead of paperwork required by our impenetrably complicated system. Are you saying you prefer to spend twice as much for less? Can everyone have the very best health care? Well, no- all systems ration. In the case of Britain, everyone receives basic health care but the wealthy pay for Harley Street health care . In the case of Canada everyone receives health care but if you are in a hurry for a hip replacement, you can go to India. In the case of France, everyone has very good health care.

As gmb92 suggested, cancer and it's outcome is a foolish way to compare health care systems. Some types of cancer progress slowly, others do not. Treatments are usually a delicate balance between toxic treatments which may kill the patient sooner than the cancer... or not. I have seen it so many times...

Can you pinpoint the page? Though I realize that early diagnosis increases survival rates, I fail to see any evidence that universal healthcare increases survivability or early diagnosis.

How is one risk factor independent of another? I was kinda surprised to see high socioeconomic status as a risk factor though they correlated that with use of oral contraceptives - illustrating that risk factors are not independent of one another.

__________________
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.

No more substance than what you just said. The gist was not only to get someone to think, but to realize that you are advocating government involvement. Please tell me why you think the government will do better.

Do you believe the govt will just hand out the money without writing volumes of laws to go with it? Come on.

Ask your military friend if they like their healthcare. My senator has many choices. In a govt funded healthcare system, you will not.

Somehow you believe the govt will lessen the bureaucracy? Are we both talking about the US?

You have a lot of convincing to do if you expect me to believe the govt will increase standards and lower the cost.

Know any doctors or nurses just twiddling their thumbs? You think it's just money?

I agree with this to a degree, because I believe cultural differences play a big part in it. Even looking at life expectancy doesn't tell as much as we would like it to because it fails to take into account such things as car crashes (the number 1 killer of our young people).

__________________
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.

The quote "A lack of health insurance is associated with lower survival among breast cancer patients." is on page 7 of that link. Those who lack health insurance generally don't go to the doctor for routine visits or screening. They go when the symptoms begin to cause major discomfort - often when it's too late. Thus, universal coverage would improve survival rates.

The risk factors such as genetics, obesity, smoking, etc. are independent of the lack of health insurance link.

__________________
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

That's where you lost me. I can't make the jump. Now, if you could show some statistical evidence... Let's look at survival rates for military wives for instance. I doubt seriously if the military would allow such stats to be published because I doubt that they're favorable. It would be interesting though. As a company commander's wife, I had monthly meetings in an effort to get women to understand their benefits. One in particular was related to women's health. I can almost guarantee that not one of those women went in for a routine GYN checkup unless they suspected pregnancy. It's just simply not an issue of money.

You simply can't separate being poor from all the things that go with it unless you do a study of thin, educated poor women who lack health insurance.

__________________
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.

The causal link between lack of health insurance and lower survival rates is well-established. It's stated in the American Cancer Society link and backed by 2 studies. Your assertion seems to be that universal healthcare means lower quality care. There's no evidence of this but for the sake of argument, lower quality care provided to those who are uninsured or underinsured would certainly result in higher survival rates than no healthcare.

Universal healthcare doesn't imply that everyone gets the same doctor or has no choice. In Germany, for instance, those making a certain income can opt out and purchase private coverage. In the U.S., we can adopt our own form of universal coverage, incorporating the best aspects of other systems with ours and allowing more freedom of choice with those who can afford better care. Basic healthcare for the poor is better than no healthcare. Basic healthcare should include regular checkups/screenings.

Quote:
The risk factors such as genetics, obesity, smoking, etc. are independent of the lack of health insurance link.

Yes, you can isolate these types variables and it's done regularly in research across many disciplines. While most of us can easily view correlations and make educated guesses surrounding them, extensive studies can get much closer in determining causation.

__________________
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

That wasn't exactly my suggestion but making these inferences generally has its limitations. My initial point on this thread is that the author (Grace-Marie Turner of the right-wing think tank Galen Institute) is spinning data by comparing early-stage-detection 5-year survival rate in the U.S. with the overall 5-year survival rate in the U.K.. Here's a good site on comparing a wide array of health-related variables across countries.

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm

For instance, heart disease death rate (per 100,000), comparing U.S. with other industrialized nations with universal coverage and reasonably-high per capita spending:

Germany: 211 (too much Bratwurst?)

U.S.: 188

U.K.: 182

Switzerland: 142

Canada: 141

Australia: 140

Spain: 137

France: 118



Cancer deaths rates:

U.K.: 143

France: 142

Germany: 141

Canada: 138

U.S.: 134

Spain: 131

Australia: 127

Switzerland: 116


Risk factors can also be viewed here. For instance, there's higher obesity in the U.S. but at the same time Europeans smoke more and consume more alcohol. With per capita spending dwarfing these other nations, outcomes are not all that impressive.

Besides treating disease, another part of a comprehensive healthcare system is prevention. Certain policies, like the banning of trans fats in NY restaurants, can help towards this.

__________________
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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2039584.ece


I guess we all envy what we don't have...

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison