Posted on 09/14/2007 4:13:35 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Last week the American Cancer Society announced it will no longer run ads about the dangers of smoking and other cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screenings. Instead, the Society will devote this year's entire advertising budget to a campaign for universal health coverage. John Seffrin, the Society's chief executive, said, "[I]f we don't fix the health-care system . . . lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco."
Sadly, these ads will waste money that should be used to continue the Society's educational campaign about prevention and detection. The evidence shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the U.S. are most likely to be screened regularly, have the fastest access to treatment once they are diagnosed with the disease, and can get new, effective drugs long before they're available in most other countries.
Last month, the largest ever international survey of cancer survival rates showed that in the U.S., women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after diagnosis, and men have a 66% chance -- the highest survival rates in the world. These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. In Great Britain, which has had a government-run universal health-care system for half a century, the figures were 53% for women and 45% for men, near the bottom of the 23 countries surveyed.
A 2006 study in the journal Respiratory Medicine showed that lung cancer patients in the U.S. have the best chance of surviving five years -- about 16%. Patients in Austria and France fare almost as well, and patients in the United Kingdom do much worse with only 5% living five years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
there is always some outfit trying to beat the cycle of life
The political benefit of universal healthcare is that it is supported by the vast majority of the population that does not get seriously ill. Politicians love to give these kinds of benefits.
Get a sniffle, pay nothing. That’s why Canadians love their system.
Get really sick, wait for diagnosis and treatment then die waiting. That’s why seriously ill Canadians go outside of the system.
Absolutely, an American citizen.
Either that or an illegal alien.
Either is just as good.
Regards
AKC will get no contribution from me if they’re going to waste the money promoting Hillary’s talking points.
Don’t blame ya. I stay as far away as possible from the American Kennel Club as I can.
This is very disappointing.
As a former board member of the (now defunct) North Carolina Chapter, I would say that this is a BIG mistake.
It will have to hurt fund raising (I certainly will stop contributing).
I knew Hillary was a bitch but I didn’t know she was an AKC registered bitch.
ooops. Lost in translation. Thoughts of Hillary must be taking up way too much space in my brain and led to a Freudian slip.
Meant to say ACS.
Someone posted a great bumper sticker line here last week.
Lassie in ‘08, vote for a bitch you can trust!
Cancer deaths in the UK are higher than in the US despite their “free” health care system and in some countries cancer patients are not afforded aggressive cancer therapies because of cost.
“Free” universal health care is the equivalent of instructing the car companies that they will be required to provide a “free” vehicle to anyone who asks and the government will reimburse them less than the cost of producing it.
I read the first paragraph and thought the same thing.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.