Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spekulatius who wrote (36098)	12/6/2009 3:23:07 AM
From: Selectric II	Respond to of 78667

In the US, we spend ASTRONOMICAL amounts near end of life, which wildly skew the numbers. Also, we sue doctors more than anywhere else, juicing the healthcare bill further. It's hard to make a comparison.

To: Spekulatius who wrote (36098)	12/6/2009 11:17:58 AM
From: Madharry	Respond to of 78667

I just heard the gov. of washington on NPR. she said something like she faced a deficit of $9 billion out of expect revenues of $39billion. now she faces an additional deficit of $2.6 billion. She said that with the stimulus ending states were facing a future budget deficit of some $180 billion in 2011. It seems to me that under those circumstances increasing taxes to pay for health care revisions and stopping the stimulus is gonna be hard to do without putting this country into a depression. maybe i should go into the fiddle business. We should cut our losses and start taking troops out of afghanistan now.

To: Spekulatius who wrote (36098)	12/6/2009 11:45:29 AM
From: lzc	Respond to of 78667

>>Same with health care reform. Germany and France (which have the most expensive health care system in Europe) can run their system at 10-11% of GNP with a better average outcome . . . Your view is a commonly held one. The following article from Lancet Oncology suggest to me the comparison ought to be life expectancy from the point of diagnosis of a life-threatening illness. On that basis, the U.S. system often has the better outcome. medscape.com

To: Spekulatius who wrote (36098)	12/6/2009 12:39:43 PM
From: lzc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78667

I just realized that the source I cited in my previous post requires a membership. Within "fair use" guidelines I'll post a few quotes below (from Lancet Oncology, August 21, 2007): Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe "One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients." ~~ "The age-adjusted 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined was 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women, which is significantly lower than the estimates of 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program ( P < .001)." "Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment." ~~~