"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."
🤷
How does this happen in a country where folks can't get care?.
is this for non health insurance holders or owners of? - As it is it’s just a general statistic to me.
So you can vouch that every person without health insurance gets cancer treatment? Who pays for their room and treatments if they have no insurance? Who pays for any needed follow-up treatment and drugs? Who pays for any after care if needed?
It’s a fairly impressive statement but what about the mortality rates in other fields that have been posted about or is this all there is? It’s easy to point out one statistic whilst ignoring all the others.
It's for people diagnosed with cancer.
We catch it sooner, we treat it more aggressively and we have better survival rates..
Now, what we do is very expensive.
In what area of healthcare do Americans not do well?
Maddog said
Jun 19 1:00 AM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
It's a well known fact backed up by statistics that the American healthcare system is the worst in Western world for people in poverty who cannot afford insurance. Maddog I suspect knows this but since he personally doesn't have to worry about healthcare costs he wants to defend the service that he is satisfied with. Thats fine but he should admit there is a reason American healthcare is considered to be the worst for a myriad of reasons. Stubbornly ignoring the stats is irrational and means trying to engage him in debate about this will be a waste of time.
That's not backed up by anything.
It is true that people sometimes choose to go without insurance and they skip medical care..
It's also true that Brits that have paid NI for years die waiting for care they thought they paid for..
Maddog said
Jun 19 1:06 AM, 2025
Can I be denied cancer treatment without insurance?
You cannot. However, without insurance, you will be charged 100% of the cost of treatment unless you take action. You can negotiate your bill with the hospital. Another option is to apply for charity care. By law, nonprofit hospitals must make charity care (aka indigent care) available to needy patients. Each hospital has its own eligibility rules.
I don't understand why so many Brits think cancer patients are thrown out in the street here..🤷
Anonymous said
Jun 19 1:27 AM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
It's a well known fact backed up by statistics that the American healthcare system is the worst in Western world for people in poverty who cannot afford insurance. Maddog I suspect knows this but since he personally doesn't have to worry about healthcare costs he wants to defend the service that he is satisfied with. Thats fine but he should admit there is a reason American healthcare is considered to be the worst for a myriad of reasons. Stubbornly ignoring the stats is irrational and means trying to engage him in debate about this will be a waste of time.
Totally agree.
” Currently the US, compared to similar Western countries, has the
lowest life expectancy at birth
highest reported maternal and infant mortality
highest hospitalization rate from preventable causes
highest death rate for avoidable and treatable conditions
highest suicide rate
highest chronic disease burden rate in the world “
and you’re right continually ignoring posted statistics has proved that a rational debate is useless. “There’s none so blind…”
Anonymous said
Jun 19 1:31 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Maddog wrote:
"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."
🤷
How does this happen in a country where folks can't get care?.
is this for non health insurance holders or owners of? - As it is it’s just a general statistic to me.
So you can vouch that every person without health insurance gets cancer treatment? Who pays for their room and treatments if they have no insurance? Who pays for any needed follow-up treatment and drugs? Who pays for any after care if needed?
It’s a fairly impressive statement but what about the mortality rates in other fields that have been posted about or is this all there is? It’s easy to point out one statistic whilst ignoring all the others.
It's for people diagnosed with cancer.
We catch it sooner, we treat it more aggressively and we have better survival rates..
Now, what we do is very expensive.
In what area of healthcare do Americans not do well?
Again you avoid answering direct questions.
Anonymous said
Jun 19 1:39 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's a well known fact backed up by statistics that the American healthcare system is the worst in Western world for people in poverty who cannot afford insurance. Maddog I suspect knows this but since he personally doesn't have to worry about healthcare costs he wants to defend the service that he is satisfied with. Thats fine but he should admit there is a reason American healthcare is considered to be the worst for a myriad of reasons. Stubbornly ignoring the stats is irrational and means trying to engage him in debate about this will be a waste of time.
That's not backed up by anything.
It is true that people sometimes choose to go without insurance and they skip medical care..
It's also true that Brits that have paid NI for years die waiting for care they thought they paid for..
Bona fide statistics, many American borne, don’t count, right?
”choose” as you put it by either you and your family living on the streets and starving or paying for health care. That’s some choice.
Syl said
Jun 19 11:14 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Can I be denied cancer treatment without insurance?
You cannot. However, without insurance, you will be charged 100% of the cost of treatment unless you take action. You can negotiate your bill with the hospital. Another option is to apply for charity care. By law, nonprofit hospitals must make charity care (aka indigent care) available to needy patients. Each hospital has its own eligibility rules.
I don't understand why so many Brits think cancer patients are thrown out in the street here..🤷
No one has said that.
That is an extreme a view as thinking people here who rely on the NHS will likely die of waiting.
Syl said
Jun 19 11:25 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Maddog wrote:
"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."
🤷
How does this happen in a country where folks can't get care?.
is this for non health insurance holders or owners of? - As it is it’s just a general statistic to me.
So you can vouch that every person without health insurance gets cancer treatment? Who pays for their room and treatments if they have no insurance? Who pays for any needed follow-up treatment and drugs? Who pays for any after care if needed?
It’s a fairly impressive statement but what about the mortality rates in other fields that have been posted about or is this all there is? It’s easy to point out one statistic whilst ignoring all the others.
It's for people diagnosed with cancer.
We catch it sooner, we treat it more aggressively and we have better survival rates..
Now, what we do is very expensive.
In what area of healthcare do Americans not do well?
In this link posted previously, there are several charts which show where the US ranks with nine other countries....including the UK.
"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."
🤷
How does this happen in a country where folks can't get care?.
is this for non health insurance holders or owners of? - As it is it’s just a general statistic to me.
So you can vouch that every person without health insurance gets cancer treatment? Who pays for their room and treatments if they have no insurance? Who pays for any needed follow-up treatment and drugs? Who pays for any after care if needed?
It’s a fairly impressive statement but what about the mortality rates in other fields that have been posted about or is this all there is? It’s easy to point out one statistic whilst ignoring all the others.
It's for people diagnosed with cancer.
We catch it sooner, we treat it more aggressively and we have better survival rates..
Now, what we do is very expensive.
In what area of healthcare do Americans not do well?
In this link posted previously, there are several charts which show where the US ranks with nine other countries....including the UK.
What is the most important criteria for rating health care?
If one makes Universal Coverage the gold standard, then the US will never rank high.
If you make surviving a serious illness important, there is no place you'd rather be.
Edit.
In the care process, which is the only thing that matters when you need health CARE, we are 2, right behind NZ..
I'm not interested in the other categories that don't mean shit when you have a tumor or blood pouring out of your head..
-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 19th of June 2025 06:07:16 PM
Syl said
Jun 19 6:51 PM, 2025
You came last in 'access to care'....you need to be able to access it before it can be administered.
Maddog said
Jun 19 7:15 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
You came last in 'access to care'....you need to be able to access it before it can be administered.
And how was that measured..
The entire ranking is designed to measure things that dont matter and will skew the results to any system with universal care..
Anonymous said
Jun 19 7:29 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
You came last in 'access to care'....you need to be able to access it before it can be administered.
And how was that measured..
The entire ranking is designed to measure things that dont matter and will skew the results to any system with universal care..
Jesus wept.
Any doubts have now been confirmed.
Maddog said
Jun 20 4:16 AM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
You came last in 'access to care'....you need to be able to access it before it can be administered.
And how was that measured..
The entire ranking is designed to measure things that dont matter and will skew the results to any system with universal care..
Jesus wept.
Any doubts have now been confirmed.
What is it that you doubt?
Fluffy said
Jul 2 7:07 PM, 2025
Hello Maddog, it's nice to meet you. I'm the Anon who watched Sicko (voluntarily!) .So maybe I do have issues!
I do however have sympathy for the less affluent American citizens enduring a health service which I think is deeply flawed. I'm glad you're satisfied with it but do you think it's fair that if a family man dislocated his arm at work he would then have a medical bill looming over him? He has to provide for his children and it's usually "normal" everyday citizens such as this who end up in extreme financial difficulty with medical bills, even if his wife works. But she may not. She could be pregnant and they are totally reliant on his wage.
I am meandering a bit from the main topic. I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's moral to have only private healthcare? Please don't mention insurance as often they only cover a small portion of the cost and the poorer in society often don't have health insurance. I don't want to labour the point but I just have always disliked the thinking at the core behind the American health care system.
Maddog said
Jul 2 7:30 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Hello Maddog, it's nice to meet you. I'm the Anon who watched Sicko (voluntarily!) .So maybe I do have issues!
I do however have sympathy for the less affluent American citizens enduring a health service which I think is deeply flawed. I'm glad you're satisfied with it but do you think it's fair that if a family man dislocated his arm at work he would then have a medical bill looming over him? He has to provide for his children and it's usually "normal" everyday citizens such as this who end up in extreme financial difficulty with medical bills, even if his wife works. But she may not. She could be pregnant and they are totally reliant on his wage.
I am meandering a bit from the main topic. I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's moral to have only private healthcare? Please don't mention insurance as often they only cover a small portion of the cost and the poorer in society often don't have health insurance. I don't want to labour the point but I just have always disliked the thinking at the core behind the American health care system.
Well, if it happened at work, it would be covered.
If it happens at home and he has opted out of buying insurance, makes too much for medicaid or isn't covered by his employer, he needs to go to the county hospital where it will be free, or very cheap, or work out a payment plan with the private hospital when they bill him..
That seems fair to me.
Fluffy said
Jul 3 1:16 AM, 2025
But medical bills for operations like say the one Syl had would cost thousands of dollars. Poorer people don't always get insurance, and if they need the operation some are too scared of the cost that they try to put up.with the pain. Even homeless people are billed! Do you think a system for people on the poverty line not having to pay for medical treatment would be fair? Since they would have zero chance of getting insurance or being able to pay for medical treatment they receive they will only end up.In arrears and eventually in court. I know there is aid given but forcing people with no money to pay privately is unethical.
Fluffy said
Jul 3 1:18 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Hello Maddog, it's nice to meet you. I'm the Anon who watched Sicko (voluntarily!) .So maybe I do have issues!
I do however have sympathy for the less affluent American citizens enduring a health service which I think is deeply flawed. I'm glad you're satisfied with it but do you think it's fair that if a family man dislocated his arm at work he would then have a medical bill looming over him? He has to provide for his children and it's usually "normal" everyday citizens such as this who end up in extreme financial difficulty with medical bills, even if his wife works. But she may not. She could be pregnant and they are totally reliant on his wage.
I am meandering a bit from the main topic. I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's moral to have only private healthcare? Please don't mention insurance as often they only cover a small portion of the cost and the poorer in society often don't have health insurance. I don't want to labour the point but I just have always disliked the thinking at the core behind the American health care system.
Well, if it happened at work, it would be covered.
If it happens at home and he has opted out of buying insurance, makes too much for medicaid or isn't covered by his employer, he needs to go to the county hospital where it will be free, or very cheap, or work out a payment plan with the private hospital when they bill him..
That seems fair to me.
Sorry, why might treatment be free at the county hospital? I thought there was no free treatment in the US, that's it's downside?
Anonymous said
Jul 3 2:48 AM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Hello Maddog, it's nice to meet you. I'm the Anon who watched Sicko (voluntarily!) .So maybe I do have issues!
I do however have sympathy for the less affluent American citizens enduring a health service which I think is deeply flawed. I'm glad you're satisfied with it but do you think it's fair that if a family man dislocated his arm at work he would then have a medical bill looming over him? He has to provide for his children and it's usually "normal" everyday citizens such as this who end up in extreme financial difficulty with medical bills, even if his wife works. But she may not. She could be pregnant and they are totally reliant on his wage.
I am meandering a bit from the main topic. I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's moral to have only private healthcare? Please don't mention insurance as often they only cover a small portion of the cost and the poorer in society often don't have health insurance. I don't want to labour the point but I just have always disliked the thinking at the core behind the American health care system.
Well, if it happened at work, it would be covered.
If it happens at home and he has opted out of buying insurance, makes too much for medicaid or isn't covered by his employer, he needs to go to the county hospital where it will be free, or very cheap, or work out a payment plan with the private hospital when they bill him..
That seems fair to me.
Sorry, why might treatment be free at the county hospital? I thought there was no free treatment in the US, that's it's downside?
Why bother taking out insurance at all if you can get free medical help? Saving101.
Maddog said
Jul 3 4:04 AM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Hello Maddog, it's nice to meet you. I'm the Anon who watched Sicko (voluntarily!) .So maybe I do have issues!
I do however have sympathy for the less affluent American citizens enduring a health service which I think is deeply flawed. I'm glad you're satisfied with it but do you think it's fair that if a family man dislocated his arm at work he would then have a medical bill looming over him? He has to provide for his children and it's usually "normal" everyday citizens such as this who end up in extreme financial difficulty with medical bills, even if his wife works. But she may not. She could be pregnant and they are totally reliant on his wage.
I am meandering a bit from the main topic. I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's moral to have only private healthcare? Please don't mention insurance as often they only cover a small portion of the cost and the poorer in society often don't have health insurance. I don't want to labour the point but I just have always disliked the thinking at the core behind the American health care system.
Well, if it happened at work, it would be covered.
If it happens at home and he has opted out of buying insurance, makes too much for medicaid or isn't covered by his employer, he needs to go to the county hospital where it will be free, or very cheap, or work out a payment plan with the private hospital when they bill him..
That seems fair to me.
Sorry, why might treatment be free at the county hospital? I thought there was no free treatment in the US, that's it's downside?
County hospitals are for people that generally don't have insurance.
Do you think they send bills to the homeless when they are brought in with some disease?
I have a buddy named Jaime. He made good money, took trips to Cancun and around the US has 8 or 10 bikes. Nice apartment downtown and could walk to bars and restaurants.
He was healthy and chose to blow off insurance and self pay for the little stuff, which is cheaper unless something big happens..Well,.he got the big C in his sinus..Took out an eye, part of his jaw and most of his teeth..He's had round after round of chemo and radiation. He's had several additional procedures..Now his back is broken from all of the chemo making his bones weak.
He's hoping he can get accepted to MD Anderson in Houston. It's probably his last chance, and honestly I don't think it will matter..
In any event there has been tens of thousands of dollars spent on him and he hasn't paid a dime. If he survives he may have some bills, but at this point he's on the taxpayers and hospitals dime. I doubt he will ever pay anything for any of his treatment..
He can't work, so like 40 million other adult Americans (many of which can work) he's probably on Medicaid now. That's free care for the poor. Probably on disability too. Not my business, so I don't know all of details..
Now, it's because of people like him that my insurance is so expensive, but I'm still fine with it because I don't want to force people to buy insurance. I'm not going to judge him even though he had plenty of means to buy insurance..
Maddog said
Jul 3 4:19 AM, 2025
"Approximately 72.3 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid as of October 2024. When including the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which also provides coverage to low-income children, the total number rises to 79.3 million. This represents roughly one-fifth of the U.S. population.
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides health insurance to low-income individuals and families. It covers a wide range of services, including doctor visits, hospital stays, prescription drugs, and long-term care. The program plays a crucial role in the U.S. healthcare system, providing coverage to millions of vulnerable Americans."
The above number includes kids covered too..
It does not include an almost equal number of elderly people covered by Medicare..
Below I will post the income limits for Medicaid..
'Medicaid income levels vary by state and individual circumstances, but generally, for most states, the monthly income limit for a single applicant is around $2,901, and for a married couple, it's about $5,802"
Soooòoo, when a married couple hit about 6 grand a month in income, they need to start paying for insurance, or roll the dice..🤷
It's for people diagnosed with cancer.
We catch it sooner, we treat it more aggressively and we have better survival rates..
Now, what we do is very expensive.
In what area of healthcare do Americans not do well?
That's not backed up by anything.
It is true that people sometimes choose to go without insurance and they skip medical care..
It's also true that Brits that have paid NI for years die waiting for care they thought they paid for..
You cannot. However, without insurance, you will be charged 100% of the cost of treatment unless you take action. You can negotiate your bill with the hospital. Another option is to apply for charity care. By law, nonprofit hospitals must make charity care (aka indigent care) available to needy patients. Each hospital has its own eligibility rules.
www.goodrx.com/conditions/cancer/cancer-without-insurance
I don't understand why so many Brits think cancer patients are thrown out in the street here..🤷
Totally agree.
” Currently the US, compared to similar Western countries, has the
and you’re right continually ignoring posted statistics has proved that a rational debate is useless. “There’s none so blind…”
Again you avoid answering direct questions.
Bona fide statistics, many American borne, don’t count, right?
”choose” as you put it by either you and your family living on the streets and starving or paying for health care. That’s some choice.
No one has said that.
That is an extreme a view as thinking people here who rely on the NHS will likely die of waiting.
In this link posted previously, there are several charts which show where the US ranks with nine other countries....including the UK.
Health Care by Country 2024 Report | Commonwealth Fund
What is the most important criteria for rating health care?
If one makes Universal Coverage the gold standard, then the US will never rank high.
If you make surviving a serious illness important, there is no place you'd rather be.
Edit.
In the care process, which is the only thing that matters when you need health CARE, we are 2, right behind NZ..
I'm not interested in the other categories that don't mean shit when you have a tumor or blood pouring out of your head..
-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 19th of June 2025 06:07:16 PM
And how was that measured..
The entire ranking is designed to measure things that dont matter and will skew the results to any system with universal care..
Jesus wept.
Any doubts have now been confirmed.
What is it that you doubt?
Hello Maddog, it's nice to meet you. I'm the Anon who watched Sicko (voluntarily!) .So maybe I do have issues!
I do however have sympathy for the less affluent American citizens enduring a health service which I think is deeply flawed. I'm glad you're satisfied with it but do you think it's fair that if a family man dislocated his arm at work he would then have a medical bill looming over him? He has to provide for his children and it's usually "normal" everyday citizens such as this who end up in extreme financial difficulty with medical bills, even if his wife works. But she may not. She could be pregnant and they are totally reliant on his wage.
I am meandering a bit from the main topic. I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's moral to have only private healthcare? Please don't mention insurance as often they only cover a small portion of the cost and the poorer in society often don't have health insurance. I don't want to labour the point but I just have always disliked the thinking at the core behind the American health care system.
Well, if it happened at work, it would be covered.
If it happens at home and he has opted out of buying insurance, makes too much for medicaid or isn't covered by his employer, he needs to go to the county hospital where it will be free, or very cheap, or work out a payment plan with the private hospital when they bill him..
That seems fair to me.
Sorry, why might treatment be free at the county hospital? I thought there was no free treatment in the US, that's it's downside?
Why bother taking out insurance at all if you can get free medical help? Saving101.
County hospitals are for people that generally don't have insurance.
Do you think they send bills to the homeless when they are brought in with some disease?
I have a buddy named Jaime. He made good money, took trips to Cancun and around the US has 8 or 10 bikes. Nice apartment downtown and could walk to bars and restaurants.
He was healthy and chose to blow off insurance and self pay for the little stuff, which is cheaper unless something big happens..Well,.he got the big C in his sinus..Took out an eye, part of his jaw and most of his teeth..He's had round after round of chemo and radiation. He's had several additional procedures..Now his back is broken from all of the chemo making his bones weak.
He's hoping he can get accepted to MD Anderson in Houston. It's probably his last chance, and honestly I don't think it will matter..
In any event there has been tens of thousands of dollars spent on him and he hasn't paid a dime. If he survives he may have some bills, but at this point he's on the taxpayers and hospitals dime. I doubt he will ever pay anything for any of his treatment..
He can't work, so like 40 million other adult Americans (many of which can work) he's probably on Medicaid now. That's free care for the poor. Probably on disability too. Not my business, so I don't know all of details..
Now, it's because of people like him that my insurance is so expensive, but I'm still fine with it because I don't want to force people to buy insurance. I'm not going to judge him even though he had plenty of means to buy insurance..
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides health insurance to low-income individuals and families. It covers a wide range of services, including doctor visits, hospital stays, prescription drugs, and long-term care. The program plays a crucial role in the U.S. healthcare system, providing coverage to millions of vulnerable Americans."
The above number includes kids covered too..
It does not include an almost equal number of elderly people covered by Medicare..
Below I will post the income limits for Medicaid..
'Medicaid income levels vary by state and individual circumstances, but generally, for most states, the monthly income limit for a single applicant is around $2,901, and for a married couple, it's about $5,802"
Soooòoo, when a married couple hit about 6 grand a month in income, they need to start paying for insurance, or roll the dice..🤷