What is the rate of cancer survival in the USA

Why does the USA have a higher cancer survival rate than the EU??

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081004174559AAUiM2l

probably because medicine is still free enterprise. Doctors still compete against one another. If there is no competition they all become mediocre.

Why does the USA have the highest cancer survival rates in the wo…?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090714121257AAQPshi

The reason why is because America has the best medical care in the world. Rich Europeans come to the USA for aid. American medical companies invent most medical machines.

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

How is universal health care such as canada’s or the uk’s better than our system?

Q: I agree we need health care reform. tort reform and buying across state lines would decrease costs. we need some government oversight so companies cant jack up rates too much, but we already have that in most of the states. what i dont understand is how so many liberals think health care should be universal, and point to canada or the uk as good examples. heres a few articles i quickly found on google about those systems. how is this better than our system?http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/07/canadian-universal-healthcare-is.htmlhttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/joe and elwood, good answers. this is the first time ive got intelligent responses from liberals on this site lol.milkshake your facts are based on the u.n. study that was completely bullshit. for example, cuban infants who died were often reported as older, not to mention they had the highest abortion rate in the hemisphere at the time of the study. as far as the life expectancy number, we have a higher homicide rate and far more transportation accidents than the countries above us. when adjusted for fatal injury rates, were among the highest. the study also gave countries more points for equality. This means if theres two countries who both have a rich person and a poor person needing expensive treatment its better to let them both die than the rich person get it and not the poor person. i agree its way too expensive here, but the reason that insurance is so expensive is because procedures cost so much more here. tort reform would lower costs as studied by the cbo.Buying across state lines could turn out very bad, as with the credit card industry. But if a federal standard is put into the bill it could work. Although im usually against government interference in the private sector, even requiring employers to provide insurance would be better than the government providing it. But what we need to do most is lower the costs of procedures. Not all doctors want to overcharge. Look at the no insurance club, they provide medical care for very cheap, and its through the private sector. one last point before citations, medicare costs per person are higher than in the private sector. universal health care wont cost us less, itll just relocate the cost to the government, and to our taxes.citations coming up.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.htmlhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.htmlhttp://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/FIN-240318/Adding-Tort-Reform-to-Healthcare-Reform-Could-Lower-Costs.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfmhttp://enr.construction.com/opinions/editorials/2009/0812-HealthCareReform.asphttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/no-insurance-club-on-fox.htmltheres more mature and intelligent answers on here than ive seen in the past week on all of this site lol. i commend all of you. roger, very good answer, but if we cant provide the same level of care as the uk or netherlands for the same price since procedures cost so much more. and you cant say the wait times arent ridiculous compared to the u.s. patriot, it wouldnt be more cost effective, in fact the cbo wouldnt even give numbers on it becuase there wasnt enough info. no one knows how much it…could cost. some regulation on companies getting out of paying could be fine. death rates and life expectancies arent just because of healthcare, so cant be used here. dirk, hawaii actually had a program providing care for children that failed miserably, but im too tired to find a link and go into that. mentor, bad answer. thanks for all the good answers guys, i actually learned some things doing research to respond to some of you lol. i now have hope for the politics section on this site.

A: They have longer life expectancy at significantly lower costs. Canadians live 2.3 years longer than US citizens on average! You can cherry-pick specific diseases all you like, but life expectancy is easy to compute and it doesn’t lie. Universal care delivers better *preventative* care and that leads to longer lives at lower costs.The fact is that in the USA we pay nearly *twice* what Europeans pay for health care, and we have both higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than most European countries. In the table below, im = infant mortality and L = life expectancy. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html for infant mortality and life expectancy; see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf for costs.United States — im= 6.4, L= 78.0, cost $7290, 16.0% of GDPCanada ——— im= 4.6, L= 80.3, cost $3895, 10.1% of GDPAustria ——– im= 4.5, L= 79.2, cost $3763, 10.1% of GDPUnited Kingdom — im= 5.0, L= 78.7, cost $3895, 8.4% of GDPDenmark —— im= 4.5, L= 78.0, cost $3362, 10.4% of GDPFinland ——- im= 3.5, L= 78.7, cost $2840, 8.2% of GDPFrance ——– im= 4.2, L= 79.9, cost $4763, 11.0% of GDPGermany —— im= 4.1, L= 79.0, cost $3527, 10.4% of GDPGreece ——– im= 5.3, L= 79.4, cost $2727, 9.6% of GDPItaly ———– im= 5.7, L= 79.9, cost $2686, 8.7% of GDPNorway ——- im= 3.6, L= 79.7, cost $4763, 8.9% of GDPSpain ——— im= 4.3, L= 79.8, cost $2671, 8.5% of GDPSweden ——- im= 2.8, L= 80.6, cost $3323, 9.1% of GDPSwitzerland — im= 4.3, L= 80.6, cost $4417, 10.8% of GDPUSA has 36 days longer life expectancy than these two countries!Ireland ——- im= 5.2, L= 77.9, cost $3424, 7.6% of GDPPortugal —– im= 4.9, L= 77.9, cost $2150, 9.9% of GDPAccording to David Frum (special assistant to president, 2001-2), between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled. See http://www.newmajority.com/the-bush-economic-record-blame-healthcare In this question I show a back-of-the envelope estimate of the cost of maintaining the status quo http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AirVVzkXd37O1CEFU8feEo3ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090916131445AAO0ltM&show=7#profile-info-S4549Rqwaa We can’t afford to maintain the status quo, but if we did it would cost $8 to $9 trillion spread over the next 10 years.Some folks blame our high costs on malpractice insurance. But the numbers don’t support that. Including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than 1.5 percent of health-care spending. See http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf and http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm Along those lines, it’s interesting to note that a number of states already have “caps and tort reform” yet the insurance companies have not lowered the cost of malpractice insurance in those states. Finally, most malpractice cases occur in state court where the Federal government has no juristiction. See http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/debating-the-cap.html#more——— update ———Versions of your question (usually biased) are asked fairly frequently, and I’ve been posting essentially the same cut & paste text since around sept 2009 – here it is from six months ago http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090813150651AAs4yi8 I’m glad it occasionally falls on non-deaf ears. Feel free to use it and the supporting links as you see fit. Also, please follow the link to my estimate of the cost of the status quo: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AirVVzkXd37O1CEFU8feEo3ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090916131445AAO0ltM&show=7#profile-info-S4549Rqwaa Too often, people compare the cost of health care reform to a baseline of zero. Truth is, the baseline is anything but zero!..

Is this the level of Health Care we want?

Q: USA has highest cancer survival/UK lowest: http://guide.opendns.com/?url=USA+has+highest+cancer+survival%2FUK+lowest%3A&client=ff20UK lags behind western world in health care: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/17/health.cancer?gusrc=rss&feed=scienceUK cancer survival rates lowest in Europe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551098/Cancer-survival-rates-worst-in-western-Europe.html Socilaised health for you, what do you think, should it be implemented in place of a system that is working?SDF – I can also see your point, this perhaps is where regulators could step in .Prester John – Bollox, a friend of min took a few days to have his ingrowing toe nail operated on with Private Insurance, 6 months on the NHS and twice his wife was sent home from hospital because they needed her bed fro someone else and she’d been prepped for surgery both times.

A: Last time I checked over 80% of women in England survived Breast Cancer.http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3317As for prostrate cancer it has a over a 70% survival rate in the UK, which is slightly above the EU Average.http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/incidence/Only 1.5% of NHS Patients die following Major Surgery according to the latest reports.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6732990.eceOne in four of all NHS patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery is older than 75.What are the Cancer Survival rates for the 47 million uninsured in the US.A recent study by the American Medical Association found that white middle-aged Americans are less healthy than their English counterparts. Americans aged 55 to 64 are up to twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, lung cancer and high blood pressure as English people of the same age. The healthiest Americans had similar disease rates to the least healthy English, the Journal of the American Medical Association study found.So Americans are twice as likely to have certain cancers in the first place such as Lung Cancer and this may be reflected in survival statistics.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4965034.stmAs for Cancer Survival Rates they are subject to numerous collation factors relating to definition and recording.http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/behindtheheadlines/europeancancersurvival/Quote:Dr Harry Burns, lead clinician for cancer in Scotland – the equivalent of England’s newly appointed cancer tsar – said that figures showing higher death rates for Britain than Europe and America were not comparing like with like.The system for registering cancer deaths is much tighter in Britain than elsewhere. A cancer patient who dies of a heart attack will be registered as a cancer death in the UK, while other countries’ cancer registries tend to understate their death rates, Dr Burns said.Eurocare II throws up oddities which cast doubt on the validity of the figures. The study, showing five-year survival rates from 1978 to 1989 for 17 countries, suggests Estonia has the best rate for certain cancers, above that of prosperous Germany and France.It also shows that immigrants to Switzerland have a higher survival rate than the resident population – because most return to their home countries in their final months and their deaths are not recorded.Separate evidence from international trials shows that British patients included in the trials do just as well as patients from other countries, casting doubt on the claims that treatment is less good in Britain.Dr Burns said: “Until we have a properly designed study comparing like with like, it is daft and demoralising to say we do badly. There is no evidence that British patients are dying more frequently than they need to. We are underselling ourselves and it doesn’t help public confidence.”His view was backed yesterday by Dr Peter Boyle, the director of epidemiology and biostatistics at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. Dr Boyle said international comparisons could not be relied on because the disease might be more advanced at diagnosis in some countries than in others.”There may well be differences [in survival] but we can’t say whether they are due to treatment, diagnosis or something else. I don’t think anyone knows the true position,” he said.Dr Boyle said global comparisons of this kind were meaningless: ” Is spending money the key thing or is it spending it appropriately? We need to know the outcome of higher spending for individual patients, but that is difficult to assess.” Indeed the best cancer units in Britain provided care that is the equal of any in the world.As for UK Cancer Services they have received a much needed boost in funding with the launch of the UK NHS Cancer Plan in 2000, with a Government target of reducing the death rate for cancer by 20% in people by 2010, whilst good progress has been made recently in Britain to improve cancer survival rates already in recent decades with a reduction of more than 12% between 1995 – 1997 and 2001 – 2003, and cancer survival rates are now at record levels and improving vastly as new regional centres and specialist research centres continue to open across the UK.http://www.cancer.nhs.uk/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5785681/Deaths-from-common-cancers-at-40-year-low.htmlAs for UK Cancer Services they have received a much needed boost in funding with the launch of the UK NHS Cancer Plan in 2000.http://www.cancer.nhs.uk/

Do you think Ted Kennedy Might Have Died Sooner if it wasn’t for British Medical Technology?

Q: The Drug used to treat Ted Kennedy’s Brain Cancer Temozolomide (Temodal™) was developed at Aston University in Britain..http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/708105http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TemozolomideThe Drug used to treat Ted Kennedy’s Brain Cancer Temozolomide (Temodal™) was developed at Aston University in Britain..http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/708105http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TemozolomideThe MRI and CAT Scans used to diagnose and help treat Senator Kennedy’s Brain Cancer were developed with British expertise.Sir Peter Mansfield – Noble Prize for his role in developing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MansfieldSir Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his part in the development of X-ray computed tomography (CT). His name is immortalised in the Hounsfield scale, a quantitative measure of radiodensity used in evaluating CT scans. The use of such CT scanning allows radiologists to determine the exact size and shape of tumours and has led to the development of further radiotherapy techniques.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_HounsfieldLondon’s Royal Marsden Hospital and its academic partner, The Institute of Cancer Research have discovered or developed more new anti-cancer drugs than the National Cancer Institute in the USA.http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/RMH/privatecare/privatecare/worldleadingexpertise.htmHarpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said: “Years of research are behind the dramatic progress being made in the fight against Britain’s common cancers. Survival rates have doubled in the last thirty years and the work of Cancer Research UK has been at the heart of that progress. “Our research is behind 19 of the top 20 drugs used to treat cancer patients worldwide today. Our work has underpinned the huge progress we are now seeing in preventing more deaths from lung cancer. And our progress over decades has helped to develop radiotherapy as a major form of treatment for half of all cancer patients.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5785681/Deaths-from-common-cancers-at-40-year-low.htmlWhilst just the other day it was announced that researchers at Imperial College London had managed to halt the growth of cancerous tumours, in what could be an important step towards the eventual eradication of this terrible illness.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1208840/Scientists-close-breast-cancer-cure-British-researchers-way-stop-tumours-growing.htmlIt should also be noted that Britain has a thriving Pharma and Bio-Techs Industry, with British Companies such as Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Astra Zeneca being amongst the top pharmaceutical companies in the world, whilst Pfizer and other such companies have major research facilities in the UK.http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Industrybranch/DH_4000038In terms of UK Cancer treatment the vast majority of NHS patients with suspected cancer (94.5%) see a specialist within two weeks and 98.2% of NHS patients diagnosed with cancer receive their first treatment within one month, however these targets are now set to be mandatory and any patient not seen within the 2 week period will be entitled to a private consultation payed for by the NHS.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5663791/Patients-to-be-given-new-right-to-see-cancer-specialist-within-two-weeks.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5785681/Deaths-from-common-cancers-at-40-year-low.htmlhttp://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressreleases/2009/july/drop-in-deaths-common-cancershttp://www.hi-mag.com/healthinsurance/article.do?articleid=20000152001Professor Darzi, Chair of surgery at Imperial College London has recently written an article in the Washington Post in defence of Britain’s National Health Service.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/16/ST2009081602108.htmlCancer Research UK have recently responded to the figures regarding US/UK Cancer Statistics being quoted by some less credible media souces and you can read their response here -http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/behindtheheadlines/europeancancersurvival/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cancer-deaths-in-britain-no-worse-than-elsewhere-1124751.htmlProfessor Darzi, Chair of surgery at Imperial College London has recently written an article in the Washington Post in defence of Britain’s National Health Service.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/16/ST2009081602108.htmlCancer Research UK have recently responded to the figures regarding US/UK Cancer Statistics being quoted by some less credible media souces and you can read their response here -http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/behindtheheadlines/europeancancersurvival/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cancer-deaths-in-britain-no-worse-than-elsewhere-1124751.htmlSo much for Republican claims regarding British Medical Innovation andsuggestions that people like Stephen Hawkings would have died in Britain.The truth being Ted Kennedy relied on British Medical Innovation developed alongside British NHS Hospitals in order to extend his life.Sorry for posting some of the above twice – a few technical problems.

A: Thanks for posting some rational stuff about healthcare in the UK. There’s been so much disinformation about a system that the British public overwhelmingly supports. Even the conservatives there have asserted their support of it.Brits live longer than Americans and spend much less on healthcare. If that’s socialism, give me a piece.