Disease Specific Survival

How do the survival rates for breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart attack and other common ailments stack up?

I ask because in one country the government is far more involved with health care than in the other.

Using heart problems as an example, survival rates in the USA are about 20% better than in Canada. Given the job our government here in the states does running the existing programs, it would be a dangerous thing to let them mismanage health care as well.

2009-06-11 07:53:34 by natural-born AMERICAN

Dr Stephen Schuster - University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, USA ASCO 2009: Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine Significantly Prolongs Disease-Free ...

than in the US? And for which is it worse?

I tried to find statistics on this, but it is very difficult. Rate of cancer survival is highest in the US, and the rate of AIDS/HIV is highest in the US and Western European countries, but the AIDS statistic is not broken down by the kind of healthcare that's available in the country. For the cancer stat, please see the links below.

Regarding the infant mortality figures that so many people like to use as an indictment of our own healthcare system, your logic is dangerously flawed. While Infant Mortality Rate is used as an overall barometer of the nation's general health, it cannot be used as a blanket indictment of our healthcare system. You need to look into the reasons why our rate is so high.

One such reason is specifically BECAUSE our healthcare system is so good. Underweight newborns are given a greater chance to survive at all in this country than in others; premature infants are put in incubators and, while many survive, many die within the first year of life.

These are listed in the "Infant Mortality" category, whereas in other countries they would be listed as "Stillborn" - a different classification. Many of these low birth-weight or premature infants who die in the first year of life are the result of multiple births, which are due to the misuse or just plain unexpected outcome of fertility drugs.

In World War I, the steel helmet was introduced to protect our soldiers. Guess what? The rate of serious head injuries actually went up by a very statistically significant number! Why? How could this be? The answer to that is that soldiers who received these injuries would have been killed without the helmets, and their statistics would have been placed in a different column.

Statistically, according to the CDC, infant mortality among African Americans is about 14.1 per 1000 live births (twice the national average); a majority of these are due to pre-term or low-birth weight and SIDS. SIDS deaths among American Indian and Alaska Natives is 2.3 times the rate for non-Hispanic white mothers. The CDC recommendation has nothing whatsoever to do with Healthcare in this country. Their strategies involve modifying the behaviors, lifestyles and conditions that affect birth outcomes such as smoking, substance abuse, poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, medical problems and chronic illness. While the last two categories may involve our healthcare system, the first four are behavioral and involve education.

While the exact causes of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) are unknown, there are specific identifiable risk factors - prone or side sleepeing, soft sleep surfaces, loose bedding, overheating, smoking (the mother during pregnancy, not the infant), bed-sharing and low birth weight. None of these risk factors have anything to do with our healthcare system.

Clearly many of the contributing factors to our high infant mortality rate can be addressed by making pre-natal care more accessible to the poor, but there will still be a significant number of poor pregnant women who will not take advantage of it - the Alaska Natives, Native Americans, Illegal Immigrants, and those whose lifestyles are far from mainstream - will still not access the care, and/or will not change their behaviors.

The danger in the logic is this - if we take the simple route and say, "Our infant mortality rate is 29th in the world, therefore our healthcare system needs to be overhauled", we are ignoring most of the problem but we feel good about taking a stand. We need to really address the realities of the phenomenon, not just take a politically expedient
position.

2009-06-24 09:50:33 by natural-born AMERICAN

Price: $23.95

For many ailments, including most cancers, heart attack, stroke and others, I see the US has a higher survival rate.

What statistics are those trying to change the US system relying on? Are they accurate?

None.

Independent
A:~)

To: Mac

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system.

For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," car accident or a shooting before an ambulance ever arrives.
If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system.
Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

Life expectancy, is inadequate measure for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system.
A plethora of factors influence life expectancy, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, income and educational levels. A health care system has, at best, minimal impact.
Life expectancy measure does not provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care "should be implemented in the United States.

There is no relationship between life expectancy and spending on health care.
Greece, Malta or Cuba this country's that spend the least per capita on health care, have higher life expectancy than several other countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Spain & Singapore which spends the next least per capita on health care, have higher life expectancy than ten other countries that spend more.
Yet the United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world, so why does it have a life expectancy lower than most of the industrialized world?
The primary reason is that the U.S. is ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds - culture, diet, etc. - can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.
Comparisons of distinct ethnic populations in the U.S. with their country of origin find similar rates of life expectancy. For example, Japanese-Americans have an average life expectancy similar to that of Japanese.

2009-09-23 06:15:04 by Soylent Obama

Price: $87.50

......than religious reasons?

{The Uganda controversy led to my thinking about the question but this is NOT a description of the circumstances in Uganda nor the motivation of the Ugandan government. My primary question and the elaboration below if purely theoretical and not at all restricted to Uganda or some specific place.}

That is, while most people denounce the idea of governmental laws existing purely for religious reasons, what about laws which may prohibit specific sexual acts for medical and public health reasons? For example, on what basis (other than your personal opinion or preference) is it inherently wrong for a government to ban a some corporeal act which is not necessary for maintaining human life or reproducing it? (I define that caveat to accept the obvious fact that eating and heterosexual sex are biological functions which entail risks of spreading disease but it wouldn't make sense for a government to ban them for public health reasons because they entail undeniable benefits which are required by our species for survival.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPTIONAL EXAMPLE: LAWS PROHIBITING ANAL SEX FOR MEDICAL REASONS

So specifically, as an example, what about a government enacting a law prohibiting anal sex? (For the sake of this theoretical scenario, whether hetereosexual or homosexual couples are involved is immaterial.) After all, the medical literature is full of attestation of the high levels of health risks -- and dangers to the public health -- associated with anal sex. And as former Surgeon General Everett Koop used to say when alerting the American public to the AIDS epidemic, "An anus is not a vagina and is not engineered to be used as one. The physical injury risks in the form of micro-tears as well as the immunological hazards play a major role in AIDS and hepatitis transmission."

So while many people would agree that religious prohibitions alone are not sufficient reason for governmental laws banning specific sexual acts, on what basis would it not be appropriate for a government with the public health interest as a motivation to prohibit a specific sexual act linked to disease transmission if that act is not required for survival of the human species?

[REMINDER: This is an international forum so the U.S. Constitution is not the final arbiter of truth or morality nor an international legal standard?]
===========================

ONCE AGAIN: A law against anal sex is just one example. My question is about the LEGITIMACY of legislating sexual conduct for public health reasons. ON WHAT BASIS SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED WRONG OR INADVISABLE?
---------------------------------------------

"Pure sophistry" Sounds like someone needs to acquire a dictionary. For something to be SOPHISTRY, it must be an argument. I asked a question. I haven't expressed my personal opinion on the subject, either for or against any particular argument. I simply asked for the BASIS of some argument(s) against such legislation.

(People on R&S are easily threatened when asked to explain their thinking. The paranoia is rampant. It is much easier for many to simply emote, resort to name-calling, and evade rational thought and discourse.)

In Uganda and other islam infested countries, sex with grossly under-aged girls is allowed by the very SAME government
So, if two consenting adults have a anal sex in THEIR bedroom what and WHY? is it a business of anyone else?

2010-02-05 15:43:16 by Reflective

Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

-People older than 85.

-Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

-Severely burned patients older than 60.

-Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.

-Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.


Such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/hea?g uid=20080505/481e8640_3421_1334520080505 2091833361

Well, it looks like they've found a way to reduce the population, if anything bad happens. Now all they have to do is find a way to release the proper agents to cause the pandemic. Damn, I'm cynical aren't I? Accually, this reads like a bad science fiction novel, but much to our dismay it could happen. It did back in 1918 on a world wide basis. If it does happen, I estimate about 45%, if not more, of the American people will not recieve the medical attention needed. This is a very bad situation for what is susposed to be the greatest nation on Earth to be in.

2008-05-05 17:32:46 by LeBlanc