I mean, for example, this:

fewer people get cancer in UK but the survival rate is lower. Net is not all that different.

UK: 396/100,000 have cancer, 56% have 5 year survival. that means cancer mortality (44% of 396) is 174.24/100,000 citizens. (.174%)

US: Cancer rate is 451 of 100,000 but 5 year survivability is 65%. So mortality w/in 5 years is 35% of 451 = 157.85 of every 100,000 citizens or .157%. Difference is thus .0164% of the population.

174.24-157.85 = 16.39 more people that they're losing, out of every 100,000 people, every year, to all cancers combined. And who knows what oranges we're comparing with what apples there. But--is that worth the difference in everyday care that the average Brit gets, for free, vs what the average American gets, for a substantial amount of his or her gross income? That I think is the question.

(In response to this post by southdenverhoo)

Link: https://qz.com/397419/the-british-seem-less-likely-to-get-cancer-than-americans-yet-less-likely-to-survive-why/

Posted: 12/03/2019 at 11:02PM

PREV NEXT REPLY

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:

Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:

Current Thread:

Brits on the street attempt to guess medical costs in the US(link) -- hooshouse 12/03/2019 6:55PM

Perhaps you get what you pay for, and free isn't -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 7:35PM

It is not that good, but it is on the upper half on more than half of the -- JohnHoo2 12/04/2019 12:28AM

Yeah, but when you have 50-63 countries -- BocaHoo91 12/04/2019 06:40AM

Chart is rather incomplete without a column for US healthcare -- Quaker 12/03/2019 7:57PM

He thinks he's so smart with his "data" and "facts"!!! Just watch Sicko!!! ** -- ResistHoo 12/03/2019 8:52PM

Or here's one with more types of cancers plus all malignancies -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 8:17PM

2002 though; the current data seems password protected -- Quaker 12/03/2019 8:44PM

Yeah, I noticed the date after posting. But I think it's pretty commonly -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 9:22PM

Frankly difference between a 62% 5 year survival rate and a 57% one for -- southdenverhoo 12/03/2019 9:36PM

IMO survival is a very poor benchmark and % is not the right metric. -- 81_Hokie 12/04/2019 08:41AM

Right, supported with a linked article from 2018. ** -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 9:40PM

Why is 5 year survival percentage a thing? I've never understood that. ** -- southdenverhoo 12/03/2019 10:38PM

I mean, for example, this: -- southdenverhoo 12/03/2019 11:02PM

I think you could make your last argument for Germany, France, Norway, etc -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 11:33PM

Tv ** -- southdenverhoo 12/04/2019 08:16AM

Man. I could make a very long post. -- Shenhoo 12/03/2019 10:54PM

What are your odds of surviving 5 years with cancer? -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 10:52PM

People that die in 7 years are called "survivors" in this rubric. They -- southdenverhoo 12/03/2019 11:03PM

It’s almost like someone went and cherry picked a stat where the US looks -- WahooRQ 12/04/2019 07:15AM

We are as good or better then -- BocaHoo91 12/04/2019 08:34AM

So we’re #1 for any medical treatment for people with insurance now? -- WahooRQ 12/04/2019 08:40AM

Just looking at the multitude -- BocaHoo91 12/04/2019 09:00AM

So your answer is "no", you don't have support for that statement. -- WahooRQ 12/04/2019 09:33AM

If you read my posts and think that I'm suggesting that all -- BocaHoo91 12/04/2019 09:42AM

I'd rather live another 7 than 5. But that's just me. -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 11:29PM

That’s certainly possible. Are you cognizant of -- southdenverhoo 12/04/2019 08:27AM

Well that, and basic common sense -- BocaHoo91 12/04/2019 08:37AM

How's this? -- BocaHoo91 12/03/2019 8:14PM