Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 160 of 160

Thread: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

  1. #151
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    581

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Interesting thread. First, I want to point out that there are several reasons that American Healthcare is more expensive. Some are healthcare related others aren't. The US will treat non citizens regardless of ability to pay. No other country that I know of will do that. The US is the only country that I know of that doesn't impose a maximum liability limit on drug reaction litigation or medical malpractice. Obesity rates in this country are high and getting higher. FDA restrictions make clearing a drug for use take years longer and cost much more in the US.
    3 Ways Regulation Makes Health Care Expensive - Foundation for Economic Education

    Most other countries limit who can receive treatments. Age restrictions are common. Longer wait times are also common in foreign countries.
    NHS rationing: hip-replacement patients needlessly suffering in pain on operation waiting lists

    On the private vs Government argument. Competition is what keeps costs down. If you don't have competition, you get the VA.

    Perhaps the most important point is the vast majority of all medical research is done in the US. Virtually all of the major breakthroughs in medicine and medical care over the last several decades have been a direct result of that research.
    19 Mind-Blowing Medical Advances in the Past 9 Years - Articles - Syberscribe

    Those wanting to compare the United Kingdom to the United States need look no farther than the cancer survival rates of the two countries to see the difference.

    56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients
    The British seem less likely to get cancer than Americans but are also less likely to survive. Why? — Quartz

    The long and the short of this is, yes healthcare can be had at a cheaper price but is that what you really want?

  2. #152
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Those wanting to compare the United Kingdom to the United States need look no farther than the cancer survival rates of the two countries to see the difference.

    56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients
    The British seem less likely to get cancer than Americans but are also less likely to survive. Why? — Quartz
    According to your own article, this is meaningless...

    the biggest contributing factor to the difference in survival rates might be over-diagnosis. Survival rates measure the likelihood that a patient survives for a certain period of time after diagnosis. So if a patient is diagnosed (or misdiagnosed) earlier, his or her chance of survival increases.

    However, if American healthcare was indeed better than Britain’s National Health Service, then the number of deaths from cancers should be fewer in the US than in England and Wales. This can be explained and measured by another statistic—the cancer mortality rate—and it turns out that they aren’t very different for the two countries.

  3. #153
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    581

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Slavister View Post
    According to your own article, this is meaningless...

    You certainly assign a lot of significance to a "might be" argument. If you have anything that supports that please link. Otherwise you just look like an idiot trying to blow smoke up someone's behind. If fact, if you knew anything about Cancer the main determiner on survival is early detection. In countries with long wait times and red tape to get through to get tested the survival rate decreases. Perhaps the stats below tell the story.

    Survival rate for Breast Cancer US 88.6 Britain 81.1
    Survival rate for Colon Cancer US 68.7 Britain 53.8
    Survival rate for Lung Cancer US 18.7 Britain 9.6
    Survival rate for Prostate Cancer US 97.2 Britain 83.2

    Which healthcare system do you think a Cancer sufferer would opt for.

  4. #154
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,266

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckiechan View Post
    It’s a small point, but your care in England was not “free”. Someone paid for it.
    Red herring. Nor are freeways free. The larger point is that some things like national defense, an interstate highway system, and other aspects of modern society are best dealt with collectively. The debate involves how much, not whether.

  5. #155
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    You certainly assign a lot of significance to a "might be" argument.
    First, not I but your own quoted article does.

    Second, if you read the quote it actually provides a strong supporting evidence. Reread what I quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Article
    If American healthcare was indeed better than Britain’s National Health Service, then the number of deaths from cancers should be fewer in the US than in England and Wales. This can be explained and measured by another statistic—the cancer mortality rate—and it turns out that they aren’t very different for the two countries.


    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Perhaps the stats below tell the story.
    These stats are meaningless for when cancer is not diagnosed correctly. More aggressive diagnoses of cancer will necessarily result in higher survival rates as well as more unnecessary treatments for cancers that never actually existed.

  6. #156
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    581

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    These stats are meaningless for when cancer is not diagnosed correctly. More aggressive diagnoses of cancer will necessarily result in higher survival rates as well as more unnecessary treatments for cancers that never actually existed.[/QUOTE]

    If American healthcare was indeed better than Britain’s National Health Service, then the number of deaths from cancers should be fewer in the US than in England and Wales.


    Did you ever consider that the reason the US has more cancer deaths than Britain and Wales is that Britain and Wales have a combined population of about 70 million while the US has a population of 330 million?

    here is your prof that cancer is misdiagnosed more often in the US? Your "might be" argument might be pretty stupid. You need to try using facts not "might be".

    Here is how it works.

    Four out of ten people with cancer in the UK are misdiagnosed at least once before their disease is identified, according to a report calling for more investment in early testing.

    The report, by the All.Can cancer initiative, warns that one in five (21 per cent) of UK patients surveyed said they waited more than six months to get the correct diagnosis.

    This failure to provide a quick, accurate diagnosis is costing patients their lives and the NHS money, the group warns.

    Four out of 10 cancer patients initially misdiagnosed, finds report warning of pressures in testing | The Independent.

  7. #157
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,816

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quoting from the article here:

    As someone who suffers from chronic illness, is incredibly clumsy and accident-prone, and has two young children, I spend an inordinate amount of time in doctors' offices and hospitals.
    When reading the article it's important to keep in mind who's writing it. Someone who uses a lot of healthcare is more likely to have a positive opinion of universal healthcare systems than someone who doesn't.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #158
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Did you ever consider that the reason the US has more cancer deaths than Britain and Wales is that Britain and Wales have a combined population of about 70 million while the US has a population of 330 million?
    Did you ever consider reading the article to which YOU linked as your source of info?

    It's kind of funny to see you argue with your own article and lose your argument in such basic manner.

    The article clearly accounts for population differences by looking at the rates per 100k, not total number of deaths.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGAIN from YOUR posted Article
    The cancer mortality rate for the US in 2010 was 172 per 100,000, and for the UK in 2010 was 178 per 100,000. This is a much smaller difference, especially when compared to the side-by-side cancer incidence rates (451 per 100,000 vs 396 per 100,000).
    On all your points, again, you pretend like I am arguing with you, but it's not me - it's the article that YOU posted is making those very points. I quoted directly from it.
    Last edited by Slavister; 09-15-19 at 01:23 PM.

  9. #159
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    581

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Slavister View Post
    Did you ever consider reading the article to which YOU linked as your source of info?

    It's kind of funny to see you argue with your own article and lose your argument in such basic manner.

    The article clearly accounts for population differences by looking at the rates per 100k, not total number of deaths.



    On all your points, again, you pretend like I am arguing with you, but it's not me - it's the article that YOU posted is making those very points. I quoted directly from it.
    I see you have a serious comprehension problem. Let me simplify it for you the US has 172 fatalities out of 451 cancer incidents. That is a 62% survival rate. The Brits have 178 fatalities out of 396 cancer incidents. That is a 55% survival rate. Which is better 62% or 55%?

    Beyond that the article states "If American healthcare was indeed better than Britain’s National Health Service, then the number of deaths from cancers should be fewer in the US than in England and Wales." It says nothing about proportionally. I am assuming you can read.

  10. #160
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Universal Health Care: from someone who lived under both ...

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    I see you have a serious comprehension problem.
    I see you are grasping at straws.

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Let me simplify it for you the US has 172 fatalities out of 451 cancer incidents. That is a 62% survival rate. The Brits have 178 fatalities out of 396 cancer incidents. That is a 55% survival rate. Which is better 62% or 55%?
    Once again, meaningless stats, according to the article itself, as it says that "cancer incidents" is not the right measure for reason explained and neither is survival rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Beyond that the article states "If American healthcare was indeed better than Britain’s National Health Service, then the number of deaths from cancers should be fewer in the US than in England and Wales." It says nothing about proportionally. I am assuming you can read.
    Nice try to take a quote out of context. Here is the full context... Check out the highlighted parts. They clearly refer to the rate measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by YOUR quoted article, AGAIN
    if American healthcare was indeed better than Britain’s National Health Service, then the number of deaths from cancers should be fewer in the US than in England and Wales. This can be explained and measured by another statistic—the cancer mortality rate—and it turns out that they aren’t very different for the two countries.

    The cancer mortality rate for the US in 2010 was 172 per 100,000, and for the UK in 2010 was 178 per 100,000. This is a much smaller difference, especially when compared to the side-by-side cancer incidence rates (451 per 100,000 vs 396 per 100,000).
    Last edited by Slavister; Today at 04:38 AM.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •