Insurance and Healthcare

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I simply made mention in passing that the US had higher cancer survival rates for most all forms of cancer. An accurate statement supported by multiple sources. You people are the ones who have turned it into a three day ordeal trying to deny that fact.

And systemic problems were raised about the studies you referenced. Without merit, you dismissed those concerns out of hand.

[tengers]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 oooook, whatever you say there.

Whoops, ok, here's the cat's meow on statistics, good charts, lots of data on all types of cancers, mortality rates, countries etc... Table 3 is one such chart.

Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 -- Parkin et al. 55 (2): 74 -- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

As I said earlier, it is interesting seeing the occurence rate in North America, as compared to Europe and Japan and also the difference in the sexes.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts And systemic problems were raised about the studies you referenced. Without merit, you dismissed those concerns out of hand.

Yeah, you and skins claimed it wasnt true, a "lie" and "false". It is neither. None of your problems make my claim false, or a lie. And this theory youve imagined where millions go undiagnosed with cancer before they die in America IS without merit. Youve presented nothing that shows otherwise. And your other concern, that we discover more of our cancers earlier than other countries isnt a "problem". Thats how you increase cancer survival rates.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Yeah, you and skins claimed it wasnt true, a "lie" and "false". It is neither. None of your problems make my claim false, or a lie. And this theory youve imagined where millions go undiagnosed with cancer before they die in America IS without merit. Youve presented nothing that shows otherwise. And your other concern, that we discover more of our cancers earlier than other countries isnt a "problem". Thats how you increase cancer survival rates.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concerns raised. First, I didn't not say the study wasn't true. I said there may be problems in the data. You seem determined not to grasp my point, and substitute what I am in fact saying with your own imaginings. The study compared data from various countries. The problem is that each country not only collects data differently, they deal with different cohorts of patients. A country with universal health care will see a different and broader patient group (on that includes more of the poor, for example) than one with no universal health care. Consequently, comparing the patients as a whole in one country with patients in another poses statistical problems. Surely, this is obvious.

I'll try this one more time. The concern about the cancer survival rate numbers is that too often in the US treatment is given for cancers or pre-cancerous conditions that may in fact need no treatment at all. This is over treatment for pecuniary gain, a problem that's been identified in the US and elsewhere where there is a fee-for-service regime. The problem is particularly egregious in the US. Consequently, in the US many, many cancers are found and treated that needed no treatment at all--prostate cancer being one of them. The survival rates for these patients show up in survival rates, skewing them upwards, making them look better. The patients with these so-called cancers or very slow growing cancers would have survived even if they received no treatment at all.

Surely, you can see the point being made. I can accept that you might disagree with it, but in all your earlier posts there seems to a failure to understand the point in the first instance.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts You seem to have difficulty understanding the concerns raised. First, I didn't not say the study wasn't true. I said there may be problems in the data. You seem determined not to grasp my point, and substitute what I am in fact saying with your own imaginings.

Your direct response to me making the claim days ago was

Quote by: barts it is only reasonable to proceed with the default position that your assertion is wrong.

A position that hasnt changed even when presented with 5 different sources that confirm my statement.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 No, I answered 3 days ago. Just like they pay for any ordinary expenditure. Tax and spend.

So you are in favor of raising taxes to pay for public healthcare. Interesting.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo So you are in favor of raising taxes to pay for public healthcare. Interesting.

Id rather them take it out of the taxes they already collect and cut expenditures elsewhere. And thats public healthcare to those who need it. And I wouldnt be opposed to the public paying the private healthcare system to provide it

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Billingsley “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal,” he asked, “then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.” - Barack Obama Does anyone else find this statement so staggeringly economically wrong that they cringe a bit? If so, why? If not, why? Billingsley.

All what B. Obama wants :
- insurance companies to Reduce their bills (!!!) so common average people can Afford health insurance coverage (!!!)
That covers zillions of U.S. Dollars. That is the whole business, with B. Obama health coverage plan. Money, as ususal.

[rmnunez]

Looks like the US demographics has more effect on the untenability of the healthcare proposals than anything wrong with the economy.

Rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the US. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5% of GDP today to almost 10% by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years. CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41% of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60% at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5% by 2020. Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » The Long-Term Budget Outlook

People will live longer but require increasing medical care and not be generating as much income.

[Rainbow]

It looks like some guys take Democracy and FreeMarket as a free ticket to rob others at all cost.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 No, like

I will re-post this(Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 -- Parkin et al. 55 (2): 74 -- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians) in case you missed it. Notice the incidence rates in the US. Not the 5 year survival rates, the incidence rates. North American rates are pretty much top of the list on most charts. So, for the most part, we are much higher than most areas of the world. Much higher, yes I said "much". It is not hyperbole, it is fact.

Now, I bet large sums of money, you seize on my "3 times more likely" statement and drag that around like a captured enemy flag. But, truth be told, in comparison to many nations, our incidence rate is on the magnitude of 3 times higher, but let me concede that if you compare the US to the developed world, 3 times is too high and can rightly be considered hyperbole if you limit the discussion in that way. But, your claims that seem to point towards the US being a shining example of ideal "cancer conditions" are pretty bogus. I will say again, we do well in prolonging survival times, but not so great at "curing" deadly cancers (the definition of a cure being someone diagnosed with a deadly cancer who ends up in remission and dies of some other cause).

And again, remember, cancer is just one of a multitude of health care issues.

[rmnunez]

The fact the US has a higher incidence of cancer may have nothing to do with the quality of health-care, it may only have to do with the excessive presence of carcinogens in the environment or with the prevalence of some genetic profile.

[barts]

Quote by: Rainbow It looks like some guys take Democracy and FreeMarket as a free ticket to rob others at all cost.

Most of them are working on Wall Street.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez The fact the US has a higher incidence of cancer may have nothing to do with the quality of health-care, it may only have to do with the excessive presence of carcinogens in the environment or with the prevalence of some genetic profile.

Or it could have something to do with the fact that the major focus of our health care industry is on generating profit and not on reducing occurrence. I don't know. Either hypothesis is possible. But please don't view that as a "it is a conspiracy to hide a cancer cure" statement. I don't mean that at all. What I mean is that in a profit driven system, the natural inclination is to focus on what brings in the most money, not on what ends the problem. The two may intersect, but do not do so inherently.

[rmnunez]

I doubt a cure could be concealed, it would be too profitable to sell it. Practically everyone everywhere in medicine is searching for a cure, they are all reseaching and if anyone came up with a possible treatment that had any success, the rest of them would begin refining the tests trying to improve formulas, confirm results and verify hypotheses. Its the famous "scientific method", they have to test things in a replicable way and in so doing refine the details. It would be impossible for thousands of scientists to be concealed one of them figured out the answer and highly unlikely the one who did would allow his discovery to be held in secret.

[rmnunez]

I wonder whether the higher incidence of cancer in the US may reflect better testing of more people for it. Perhaps the proportion of people afflicted by cancer is the same everywhere, but in some places they test more people for it more and thus have a higher incidence? Maybe it has to do with the quality of the testing too, like a relatively simple self-diagnosis for breast cancer compared to expensive clinincal studies for some form of leukemia.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I will re-post this(Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 -- Parkin et al. 55 (2): 74 -- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians) in case you missed it. Notice the incidence rates in the US. Not the 5 year survival rates, the incidence rates. North American rates are pretty much top of the list on most charts. So, for the most part, we are much higher than most areas of the world. Much higher, yes I said "much". It is not hyperbole, it is fact. .

Care to be specific about what you want us to look at? Tengers want us to look at Table 5, which of course doesnt exist. Did you want to point to anything specific enough to even discuss? Or are you all about vague generalities? And what point do you imagine making about healthcare by comparing North America to other areas?

McLaughlin’s Canadian comparison shows closely similar incidence rates for various cancers among Canada, the United States, England, Wales and Denmark, along with a number of other Western Eutropean coountries. Cancer Incidence Trends Differ Between Europe, United States -- Miller 93 (19): 1444 -- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

with both public and private healthcare systems there is little difference. Like I said, healthcare has little effect on incidence rates. Other than that relatively new drug that women can take that is supposed to prevent some wart virus that is connected with a higher incidence of one type of cervical cancer, I cant think of a single medical treatment or pharmeceutical that claims to reduce the incidence of cancer. Can You?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez I doubt a cure could be concealed, it would be too profitable to sell it. Practically everyone everywhere in medicine is searching for a cure, they are all reseaching and if anyone came up with a possible treatment that had any success, the rest of them would begin refining the tests trying to improve formulas, confirm results and verify hypotheses. Its the famous "scientific method", they have to test things in a replicable way and in so doing refine the details. It would be impossible for thousands of scientists to be concealed one of them figured out the answer and highly unlikely the one who did would allow his discovery to be held in secret.

I did say I was NOT saying that...right? I was specifically concerned that someone would jump to that conclusion and despite saying it very clearly, you STILL jumped to that conclusion and responded by making arguments against what I said very specifically I was NOT saying.

It is plainly obvious that if someone could create a pill that prevented cancer, they would stand to make crazy bazillions of dollars. But since cancer has no single, found cause, and since pharma companies are geared to make money, and because of the state of science and medicine in regards to cancer today, it is much more profitable to focus on developing drugs to attack the problem after it happens. What is the incentive, given that a miracle pill will generate all that money, for the profit driven industry to focus on pushing changes in diet or other answers that may hold promise for lessening occurrence, but hold no potential for profit?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Care to be specific about what you want us to look at? Tengers want us to look at Table 5, which of course doesnt exist. Did you want to point to anything specific enough to even discuss? Or are you all about vague generalities? And what point do you imagine making about healthcare by comparing North America to other areas?

I figured you could look over the source and understand the material yourself. What I wanted you to look at was just what I said. Look at it ALL and notice where our geographic region falls on the majority of the charts, regardless of how they are numbered. Why don't you give that a try.

And since the US more than doubles the population of the other two countries in North American, I would say our numbers pretty much drive the data. That would be the relevance of the North American numbers. And in case you think I'm making population figures up, I'll provide a link to support my contention. List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote by: barnhardt2010 with both public and private healthcare systems there is little difference. Like I said, healthcare has little effect on incidence rates. Other than that relatively new drug that women can take that is supposed to prevent some wart virus that is connected with a higher incidence of one type of cervical cancer, I cant think of a single medical treatment or pharmeceutical that claims to reduce the incidence of cancer. Can You?

No, and that isn't the issue when it comes to the ongoing "cancer" debate in this thread. You were the one who cherry picked five year cancer survival rates as a shining beacon of American medical achievement. We are simply addressing factors that mitigate just how shining an example that is, such as high incidence rates and the fact that the five year cut off in stats covers the sad truth that we really don't cure at a higher rate, we just push the envelope of years of survival with the cancer out further than most others. And it isn't that I don't think it is a good thing to prolong life. It gives the patient more time with family and provides a longer window of hope. All I am saying is that considered within the larger scope of the complete debate, what you focus on is less impressive than you would like to admit.

[tengers]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Care to be specific about what you want us to look at? Tengers want us to look at Table 5, which of course doesnt exist. Did you want to point to anything specific enough to even discuss? Or are you all about vague generalities? And what point do you imagine making about healthcare by comparing North America to other areas? with both public and private healthcare systems there is little difference. Like I said, healthcare has little effect on incidence rates. Other than that relatively new drug that women can take that is supposed to prevent some wart virus that is connected with a higher incidence of one type of cervical cancer, I cant think of a single medical treatment or pharmeceutical that claims to reduce the incidence of cancer. Can You?

In the initial one which I was looking at (it was a 90's version), it was table 5, for the year that I later posted, it is table 3, but really you should look at the whole report because it has a number of insights into, occurrence rates, male/female differences, regional rates, age reconciled rates and so forth. The key point is the occurence rate in North America, which is significantly higher than other regions of the world. perhaps we should look at that and then the mortality statistics for different forms of cancer to see what is happening. Lung cancer is a major contributor to males. I think this could be avoided, as perhaps several others could by avoidance behavior.