4 ms·

> And if you're poor and have cancer? Most other western countries will give you a chance Cancer is probably the worst example you could pick to prove your poi

> And if you're poor and have cancer? Most other western countries will give you a chance Cancer is probably the worst example you could pick to prove your point. It turns out that the US system is highly-optimized for specialized care (which happens to include cancer), as opposed to routine care. That's one of the reasons it ends up being more expensive. In fact, even when including poor and uninsured people in the mix, the US has dramatically better outcomes when it comes to cancer treatment than the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, etc.

notfromhere 9y ago
Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL No, even factoring that in, the US has dramatically better outcomes for cancer than the other countries listed.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment?
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment? You're missing the point, which is that the number of people who die from cancer that would otherwise have been treatable except for their ability to afford it is actually quite low. And the US does much, much better at treating cancer overall. Which is why the overall cancer survival rates in the US are drastically higher, even though a small number of people may not be able to afford treatment.. (You're also assuming that people are able to receive cancer treatment in countries like the UK, which is actually not a foregone conclusion. Assuming it's even diagnosed properly - the UK in particular is really notorious for cancer misdiagnoses - they may actually not be eligible for having their treatment covered under the NHS, even though their cancer may otherwise medically be treatable, either in other countries or if they can self-fund it in the UK).

notfromhere 9y ago

Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL

chimeracoder 9y ago
> Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL No, even factoring that in, the US has dramatically better outcomes for cancer than the other countries listed.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment?
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment? You're missing the point, which is that the number of people who die from cancer that would otherwise have been treatable except for their ability to afford it is actually quite low. And the US does much, much better at treating cancer overall. Which is why the overall cancer survival rates in the US are drastically higher, even though a small number of people may not be able to afford treatment.. (You're also assuming that people are able to receive cancer treatment in countries like the UK, which is actually not a foregone conclusion. Assuming it's even diagnosed properly - the UK in particular is really notorious for cancer misdiagnoses - they may actually not be eligible for having their treatment covered under the NHS, even though their cancer may otherwise medically be treatable, either in other countries or if they can self-fund it in the UK).