Re: What's happened to the US dollar?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:15:07 -0400, donaroof@xxxxxxxxx (Don A Roof)
wrote:

Jack Hollis babbles: "That's because the US has the best health care in
the world."


It does.

Here's a list of the survival rates for cancer comparing the US and
England and Wales

Prognosis of Rectal Cancer

62% survive 5 years for rectal cancer in the US 1992-99 (Cancer Facts
and Figures, American Cancer Society, 2004)

5-year survival rate for men aged 15-99 with rectum cancer is 40.3% in
England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

5-year survival rate for women aged 15-99 with rectum cancer is 44.8%
in England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

Prognosis Breast Cancer

87% survive 5 years in the US 1992-99 (Cancer Facts and Figures,
American Cancer Society, 2004)

5-year survival rate for women aged 15-99 with breast cancer is 72.8%
in England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

Prognosis Lung Cancer

15% survive 5 years for lung/bronchial cancer in the US 1992-99
(Cancer Facts and Figures, American Cancer Society, 2004)

5-year survival rate for men aged 15-99 with lung cancer is 5.2% in
England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

5-year survival rate for women aged 15-99 with lung cancer is 5.4% in
England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

Prognosis Pancreatic Cancer

4% survive 5 years for pancreatic cancer in the US 1992-99 (Cancer
Facts and Figures, American Cancer Society, 2004)

5-year survival rate for men aged 15-99 with pancreatic cancer is 2.1%
in England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

5-year survival rate for women aged 15-99 with pancreatic cancer is
2.6% in England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National
Statistics)

Prognosis Brain Cancer

33% survive 5 years in the US 1992-99 (Cancer Facts and Figures,
American Cancer Society, 2004)

5-year survival rate for men aged 15-99 with brain cancer is 13.0% in
England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics)

5-year survival rate for women aged 15-99 with brain cancer is 15.4%
in England and Wales 1991-95 (cancer Survival, National Statistics)


The above is a typical statement by the poster that over reaches, has no
basis in reality and, in fact, is just a regurgitation of another
conservative talking point. Conservatives HAVE to believe that
statements like Hollis makes are true or their economic house of cards
comes tumbling down.

LOL, what house of cards


NO, we do NOT have the best health care in the world unless Hollis can
cook up some bizzaro-world statistics to prove his wild statement.

Already did. BTW, over 10% of the patients at NY Hospital's Sloan
Kettering Institute are from abroad. They are rich and they pay cash.


In fact, one of the leading causes of death in this country is now
hospital caused complications or errors leading to patient death.


Absolute nonsense

We are woefully ranked in our Infant Mortality rate, to pick another
category of health care at random. We don't rate in the top 10 LOWEST,
at 6.4 deaths per thousand births. Germany is #10 with 4.1 to give you
an idea.

This is misleading because the US defines infant mortality different
from the Europeans. It's apples to oranges.

A front page story in the May 10,'06 Orange County Register is only
the latest in a series of decades-long charges that the US has
unconscionably high infant mortality rates.

But it's one of the "damn lies/statistics" stories.

The US infant mortality rate is not clearly higher than that of the
European countries.

In Europe, they label early deaths as "stillbirths," which are
excluded from their infant mortality statistics. In the USA, if a baby
is born alive and dies 30 seconds later, it's an infant death and
included in the infant mortality statistics. Comparing "apples to
apples," the infant mortality stats of the US compared to the rest of
the developed world are not unfavorable.

Here is a study done by the Department of Pediatrics, McGill
University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Canada. Published in
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2002 Jan;16(1):16-22.

Registration Artifacts in International Comparisons of Infant
Mortality.

Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P.

Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine,
Montreal, Canada. michael.kra...@xxxxxxxxx

Large differences in infant mortality are reported among and within
industrialised countries. We hypothesised that these differences are
at least partly the result of intercountry differences in registration
of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g birthweight)
and/or their classification as stillbirths vs. live births. We used
the database of the International Collaborative Effort (ICE) on
Perinatal and Infant Mortality to compare infant mortality rates and
registration practices in Norway (n = 112484), Sweden (n = 215 908),
Israeli Jews (n = 148123), Israeli non-Jews (n = 52 606), US Whites (n
= 6 074 222) and US Blacks (n = 1328332). To avoid confounding by
strong secular trends in these outcomes, we restricted our analysis to
1987-88, the most recent years for which data are available in the ICE
database for all six groups. Compared with Norway (with an infant
mortality rate of 8.5 per 1000), the crude relative risks [95%
confidence intervals] were 0.75 [0.69,0.81] in Sweden, 0.97
[0.90,1.06] in Israeli Jews, 1.98 [1.81,2.17] in Israeli non-Jews,
0.95 [0.89,1.01] in US Whites and 2.05 [1.95,2.19] in US Blacks. For
borderline-viable infants, fetal deaths varied twofold as a proportion
of perinatal deaths, with Norway reporting the highest (83.9% for
births <500 g and 61.8% for births 500-749 g) and US Blacks the lowest
(40.3% and 37.6% respectively) proportions. Reported proportions of
live births <500 g varied 50-fold from 0.6 and 0.7 per 10000 in Sweden
and Israeli Jews and non-Jews to 9.1 and 33.8 per 10000 in US Whites
and Blacks respectively. Reported proportions 500-749 g varied
sevenfold from 7.5 per 10000 in Sweden to 16.2 and 55.4 in US Whites
and Blacks respectively. After eliminating births <750 g, the relative
risks (again with Norway as the reference) of infant mortality changed
drastically for US Whites and Blacks: 0.82 [0.76,0.87] and 1.42
[1.33,1.53] respectively. The huge disparities in the ratio of fetal
to infant deaths <750 g and in the proportion of live births <750 g
among these developed countries probably result from differences in
birth and death registration practices. International comparisons and
rankings of infant mortality should be
interpreted with caution.
Reply With Quote



How can that be if we have the "best health care in the world?" I
haven't crunched all the numbers, of course, but does anyone wanna bet
that that figure of 6.4 would be immediately shattered if the figures
were to be adjusted for ONLY black deaths at birth?

There's no doubt that, as a group, black have poorer outcomes in most
areas of health care than whites in the US. However, do you suppose
that you could find groups like Algerians in France of Moroccans in
Holland who have the same problem?


Hollis mouths the tripe of the conservative water carriers to make what
they WANT to believe seem like reality. Sherwin Williams doesn't make
enough paint to whitewash the garbage these guys spew in an effort to
keep lining the pockets of the insurance industry and drug companies.

Actually, the only garbage around here is from you. You obviously
have no idea what you're talking about.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Death Panels
    ... The basic difference between the two of you is that one is prepared to accept slightly lower outcomes for those currently covered, to gain the benefit of cover 100% of the population. ... The 57% survival rate only covers the 80% who get treated in the US, which if treated as a % of the whole population is only 46%. ... But the choice for the population might be better served to go for the Canadian Model for cancer care, where 7% more people will survive cancer. ... of does public health care, in any way, cut people's life expectancy ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Death Panels
    ... The difference is not that Canada spends less and gets lower outcomes, ... there were 296 bone marrow transplants performed in Canada. ... Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Princess Margaret Hospital/Ontario Cancer Institute, ... survival rate and spending a LOT more on for-profit health ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Vices on the course
    ... >>> That's a misleading and irrelevant stat if you don't compare it to ... >>> with cancer. ... >> For thyroid cancer the 20 year survival rate is 95%. ... And while some cancers have built in targeting (thyroid cells ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Cancer in the Sinus Cavity?
    ... Does anyone know what type of cancer this might be, ... Early-stage tumors have a cure rate of up to 80%. ... Cure rates of up to 90% are attainable in low-grade adenocarcinomas that ... High-grade adenocarcinomas have a dismal 5-year survival rate of less ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Whats happened to the US dollar?
    ... lowest rates of cancer survival in Europe. ... Actually, for all types of cancer, Wales ranks above only the Czech ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
Loading