"10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care"

[JuniperLea]

This looks like basic "baffle 'em with bullshit" tactics to me... it's loaded with references that seem pretty out there.

Any thoughts?

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.<1> Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.<2> Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.<3> Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.<4> Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. What good is a mammogram when you can't afford the treatment for the lump that was found?!

[ParkieDem]

2. I believe the cancer survival rates are correct.

The US lags the rest of the industrialized world in just about every health category, but I do believe cancer treatment is more readily available here, and more effective, than in other parts of the world.

That doesn't change the fact that the system is in desperate need of reform, though.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Or that the figure for cancer survival omits the 70 million who can't afford

health insurance.

Nobody has denied that the US tops the world league-table for the most expensive, leading-edge medical treatment. But would someone without health insurance have access to it? How about homeless people? In Europe, everyone would. Remember these lines by John Donne:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

[JuniperLea]

11. I think you may have hit on something here...

If you count every single person in a country where everyone has healthcare, then you only count in another country (US) those who have healthcare benefits, you'd get some pretty skewed numbers.

My kingdom for a statistitian! LOL! How do you figure out who was counted, and more importantly, who, if any, were not?

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. You're being nasty again. People on here are being very nasty to these nice,

corporate "scientismificists", asking question like that.... It's the height discourtesy. And I won't have it! Consider yourself severely reprimanded.

[JuniperLea]

13. LOL!

Yeah, that about sums it up! Ouch! LOL!

[ingac70]

3. ....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SogErMG48mI/AAAAAAAAK7Y/CuIH5A4dnfw/s400/lifeexpectancy.bmp


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SogD2MbDYtI/AAAAAAAAK7Q/L_qOXqW4AvQ/s400/cancer.bmp

[LondonReign2]

4. Lovely Cherry Picking

Doesn't change the fact that overall Americans have worse outcomes than Canada, the UK, etc.

Its like saying the Washington Nationals outscore their opponents by 16% in the 5th inning; doesn't change the fact that they have a horrible overall record.

[rgbecker]

5. Nearly one-third of Americans have had a colonoscopy? I don't think so.

Of all ages? Give me a break.

[rurallib]

6. May want to check out Snopes on this

Here is one to get you started:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp

[Oregone]

7. One thing that popped out to me about the whole cancer thing...

Well, in prostate cancer for example, in the US, patients have a 9X greater chance (with a Gleason 7 (4/3)) of dying from cardiac disease than the actual cancer. So, what does this indicate? That there is a correlation between unhealthy lifestyles (or genetics) and that form of cancer, so much so, that those who get it often up and die from heart attacks. So...where am I going here? Well, if people get the disease but have healthier lifestyles in Europe, maybe they will actually live long enough to die from the cancer than just have a heart attack while waiting. So their cancer survival rate would be lower, when people actually die from the cancer instead of greased arteries that may of contributed to the cancer. Is the incidence rate just as high?!?

Anyway...who knows. Seems like its comparing apples to oranges a bit though. Too many different variables to tie it to "the greatest medical system in the world"

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Maybe, but Americans aren't as healthy. Look at our diabetes rates or heart disease or

cholesterol blockages as compared to other countries.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Perhaps cancer mortality is higher elsewhere because Americans

are not living long enough to die of cancer? The seemingly appalling prostate cancer rates could be reflected in the fact that prostate cancer is a very slow developing cancer, and Americans will usually die of other causes before they have a chance to succumb to prostate cancer - like my father who had prostate cancer, but died of Alzheimers.

The fact is, the life expectancy of Americans is shorter than of most Europeans - therefore, the more slowly progressing diseases that affect Europeans don't have a chance to manifest in Americans to the same degree.

[fasttense]

14. Are you sure your statistics are accurate?

This comes from the NCPA, a right wing neocon website established to ensure "free" trade and privatization. The Chairman of the board is: Pete du Pont a regular columnist on www.opinionjournal.com, the editorial page website of The Wall Street Journal. (a friend of Murdock no doubt)

Du Pont has served as a state legislator, U.S. Congressman, Governor, and in 1988 was a Republican candidate for President of the United States.

I heard Thom Hartmann arguing with a right wing corporatist masquerading as a feminist today on his radio show. He read and researched the studies quoted. The studies were seriously flawed in the population of the US that they looked at. The researchers said that the US was just too big for them to quantify so they chose a very small sample to compare the European numbers to.

I wouldn't trust the website you posted if you paid me. The numbers are very likely bogus.

[JuniperLea]

15. Thank you!

This is some of the info I've been digging for!

[JuniperLea]

16. Oh, and they aren't "my" statistics...

A RW loonie cousin of mine sent this to me... I've been trying to pick it apart... this is where DU excells! Thanks for your help!

[JPK]

17. Re: Cancer "survival" rates

My niece developed cancer when she was 15 and had to have her leg amputated at the knee. A dis articulation as it was called. She's 31 now and beside the steel leg does pretty well. I found out an interesting thing though about cancer "survival" rates and how they were recorded from back then. I assume they are the same now as they were then. A survivor is anyone that lived with the cancer for five years. So from a statistical standpoint anyone that had a cancer but lived beyond five years but then subsequently succumbed to the disease was still considered a "survivor" and not included in the official stats when it came to mortality rates. So statistically the numbers may be a bunch of BS depending on what the criteria are for being considered as a "survivor".

[booley]

18. So my mom would be a cancer survivor

Even though she died of cancer.