"In some countries a single-payer health care system 'works pretty well.'"

misle

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
3,371
0
76
Locked because this thread about a WH statement has gotten way off topic with personal insults and bickering.

Fern
P&N Moderator


Link to story

White House (CNSNews.com) - Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system ?works pretty well,? the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring.

?I don?t know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good,? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.

Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: ?I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don?t know the exact countries, but again, I don?t think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have.?

I just find this totally hilarious. It's actually quite sad, but any politician trying to pull something like this is very funny to me.

So, does the White House actually know if any single-payer health care system 'works pretty well?' And how does the White house define 'pretty well?'
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Originally posted by: misle
Link to story

White House (CNSNews.com) - Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system ?works pretty well,? the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring.

?I don?t know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good,? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.

Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: ?I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don?t know the exact countries, but again, I don?t think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have.?

I just find this totally hilarious. It's actually quite sad, but any politician trying to pull something like this is very funny to me.

So, does the White House actually know if any single-payer health care system 'works pretty well?' And how does the White house define 'pretty well?'

I heard this yesterday. Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.

But, it does show a glaring point: that a single-payer, universal health care system hasn't worked out well anywhere it has been tried. If there was a shining beacon of single-payer, universal health care in the world, don't you think the O-team would jump all over it and use it as an example every chance they get?
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
3
81
Summary should be amended to "all of them" or more accurately(more accurate than the current one atleast) "Canada, Britain, and maybe France".

If they actually didn't imply they had any idea that would be Palin level idiocy, but they implied any countries people you talked to would be ok and then gave some specific countries when pressed. A dumb way to go about it no doubt, but not as bad as the summary would imply.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.
This is something we can all agree on. The guy is a fvcking retard. I cannot stand him up there like some fat dumb ass, he's far more useless than any I've ever seen.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.
This is something we can all agree on. The guy is a fvcking retard. I cannot stand him up there like some fat dumb ass, he's far more useless than any I've ever seen.

That's funny, he's just been the subject of articles that are describing him as probably the most effective press secretary in decades, with the possible exception of Tony Snow.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: misle
Link to story

White House (CNSNews.com) - Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system ?works pretty well,? the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring.

?I don?t know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good,? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.

Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: ?I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don?t know the exact countries, but again, I don?t think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have.?

I just find this totally hilarious. It's actually quite sad, but any politician trying to pull something like this is very funny to me.

So, does the White House actually know if any single-payer health care system 'works pretty well?' And how does the White house define 'pretty well?'

I heard this yesterday. Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.

But, it does show a glaring point: that a single-payer, universal health care system hasn't worked out well anywhere it has been tried. If there was a shining beacon of single-payer, universal health care in the world, don't you think the O-team would jump all over it and use it as an example every chance they get?

Well he certainly could have said 'Germany, France, and Britain'. All of them pay a fraction of what we do and achieve similar or better health results. He probably could have said 'every single case that it has ever been implemented in all of human history', but I'm willing to admit there may be a case somewhere that it didn't work that I'm not aware of.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.
This is something we can all agree on. The guy is a fvcking retard. I cannot stand him up there like some fat dumb ass, he's far more useless than any I've ever seen.

That's funny, he's just been the subject of articles that are describing him as probably the most effective press secretary in decades, with the possible exception of Tony Snow.
If effective = vague, I agree with those articles.

 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Originally posted by: misle
I just find this totally hilarious. It's actually quite sad, but any politician trying to pull something like this is very funny to me.

So, does the White House actually know if any single-payer health care system 'works pretty well?' And how does the White house define 'pretty well?'

As someone who supports UHC, I'm disgusted by this. The White House should have specifics. They need to cite satisfaction polls and financial studies on countries with UHC. They need to sell the issue.

UHC will only come to this country because people are sick of the "Party of No", not because the Democrats have done a good job framing and selling the issue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.
This is something we can all agree on. The guy is a fvcking retard. I cannot stand him up there like some fat dumb ass, he's far more useless than any I've ever seen.

That's funny, he's just been the subject of articles that are describing him as probably the most effective press secretary in decades, with the possible exception of Tony Snow.
If effective = vague, I agree with those articles.

The job of the press secretary is to see that the White House's viewpoint is presented to the press in the most effective way possible. Being vague is usually a big part of that. Maybe you just don't like the position of the press secretary, period. It usually pisses me off too.

Insofar as his performance of the actual job duties, annoying though they may be, Gibbs has been pretty effective.
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,155
1
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.
This is something we can all agree on. The guy is a fvcking retard. I cannot stand him up there like some fat dumb ass, he's far more useless than any I've ever seen.

I really doubt any will take the worst press secretary ever award away from the master - "I know nothing about the Cuban Missle Crisis" Dana Perino.

Her response to critics of the "Mission Accomplished" banner is already legend:

President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific, and said, Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission. And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Maybe you just don't like the position of the press secretary, period. It usually pisses me off too.
Probably that plus he seems a smirky ass. The press secretary just seems to do very little except continually flounder when asked questions over and over and stonewall the media from talking to the person they really want to (pres).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Maybe you just don't like the position of the press secretary, period. It usually pisses me off too.
Probably that plus he seems a smirky ass. The press secretary just seems to do very little except continually flounder when asked questions over and over and stonewall the media from talking to the person they really want to (pres).

I'm pretty sure you could actually write his job description as 'the person who keeps the media from talking to the person they really want to, the President'.

Can you think of a press secretary that hasn't come off as a douche? I can't. I mean they sit in a room full of reporters who basically attempt to trip them up or have them answer awkward questions each and every day. His job is to avoid them all without being too obvious about it while putting forth the President's viewpoint on events.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
I think all Press Secretaries should be required to have stand-up comedic experience.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: misle
Link to story

White House (CNSNews.com) - Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system ?works pretty well,? the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring.

?I don?t know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good,? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.

Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: ?I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don?t know the exact countries, but again, I don?t think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have.?

I just find this totally hilarious. It's actually quite sad, but any politician trying to pull something like this is very funny to me.

So, does the White House actually know if any single-payer health care system 'works pretty well?' And how does the White house define 'pretty well?'

I heard this yesterday. Robert Gibbs is a hoot...he has to be the most inept press secretary ever.

But, it does show a glaring point: that a single-payer, universal health care system hasn't worked out well anywhere it has been tried. If there was a shining beacon of single-payer, universal health care in the world, don't you think the O-team would jump all over it and use it as an example every chance they get?

Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
Life expectancy is a horrible way to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system since it includes so many things that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Diet, drug use, violence, even things like automobile accidents all decrease life expectancy.

A much better measure is to look at life expectancy for people AFTER the develop a condition that requires medical attention. When you look at those figures the US kicks ass. Look at our survival rates for cancer compared to other countries and get back to me.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
The press secretary is just like the president.....clueless and with very few specifics.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The press secretary is just like the president.....clueless and with very few specifics.
Yea... but at least he doesn't use a teleprompter
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
Life expectancy is a horrible way to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system since it includes so many things that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Diet, drug use, violence, even things like automobile accidents all decrease life expectancy.

A much better measure is to look at life expectancy for people AFTER the develop a condition that requires medical attention. When you look at those figures the US kicks ass. Look at our survival rates for cancer compared to other countries and get back to me.

I was going to post something very similar to this. He tries to make the ridiculous correlation that life expectancy is 100% tied to the type of health insurance of a nation, completely ignoring the plethora of other influences?

He was right...he did make the ignorant statement of the thread! :laugh:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
Life expectancy is a horrible way to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system since it includes so many things that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Diet, drug use, violence, even things like automobile accidents all decrease life expectancy.

A much better measure is to look at life expectancy for people AFTER the develop a condition that requires medical attention. When you look at those figures the US kicks ass. Look at our survival rates for cancer compared to other countries and get back to me.

Well I would hope that we do better, according to the American Cancer Society we spend close to three times as much on it as they do. ($315 per person per year on cancer, while Britain spends $119) You can look at Norway, Finland, and other similar countries and find that they have comparable cancer survival rates to the US while spending FAR less.

The question isn't if we can get better care for spending around 50% more than the average country, the question is if we get care that is worth all the extra cash.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,362
1,219
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
Life expectancy is a horrible way to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system since it includes so many things that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Diet, drug use, violence, even things like automobile accidents all decrease life expectancy.

A much better measure is to look at life expectancy for people AFTER the develop a condition that requires medical attention. When you look at those figures the US kicks ass. Look at our survival rates for cancer compared to other countries and get back to me.

Well I would hope that we do better, according to the American Cancer Society we spend close to three times as much on it as they do. ($315 per person per year on cancer, while Britain spends $119) You can look at Norway, Finland, and other similar countries and find that they have comparable cancer survival rates to the US while spending FAR less.

The question isn't if we can get better care for spending around 50% more than the average country, the question is if we get care that is worth all the extra cash.

I would hate for you to be a sniper because you have a broad definition of close.
What is the exact ROI on better survival rates? I like paying more to get a better chance to live. The extra few hundred $ seems like a sound investment.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

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. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002.

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. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.

Further analysis of these figures shows that, in the case of men, more than half of the difference in survival between Europe and United States can be attributed to prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is excluded, the survival rates decreased to 38.1% in Europe and 46.9% in the United States. For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment.



 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
Life expectancy is a horrible way to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system since it includes so many things that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Diet, drug use, violence, even things like automobile accidents all decrease life expectancy.

A much better measure is to look at life expectancy for people AFTER the develop a condition that requires medical attention. When you look at those figures the US kicks ass. Look at our survival rates for cancer compared to other countries and get back to me.

Well I would hope that we do better, according to the American Cancer Society we spend close to three times as much on it as they do. ($315 per person per year on cancer, while Britain spends $119) You can look at Norway, Finland, and other similar countries and find that they have comparable cancer survival rates to the US while spending FAR less.

The question isn't if we can get better care for spending around 50% more than the average country, the question is if we get care that is worth all the extra cash.

I would hate for you to be a sniper because you have a broad definition of close.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

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. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002.

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. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.

Further analysis of these figures shows that, in the case of men, more than half of the difference in survival between Europe and United States can be attributed to prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is excluded, the survival rates decreased to 38.1% in Europe and 46.9% in the United States. For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment.

I would hate for you to be attempting to debate on an internet message board, because that would require you to be able to read.

I specifically mentioned Norway and Finland. Not only did I say those two countries, but I specifically contrasted them to the UK in terms of survival rates. You then attempt to disprove me by linking a study that examines the differences between the US and Europe as a whole, specifically lumping together the very two groups that I was attempting to make a distinction between.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
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. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.
Yes, and survival is higher due to early detection, an argument for providing medical coverage to everyone so they can get regular checkups.
Plus I don't see how any of it is an argument against UHC, since a lot of this treatment and testing is paid for by Medicare.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,362
1,219
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy

I would hate for you to be attempting to debate on an internet message board, because that would require you to be able to read.

I specifically mentioned Norway and Finland. Not only did I say those two countries, but I specifically contrasted them to the UK in terms of survival rates. You then attempt to disprove me by linking a study that examines the differences between the US and Europe as a whole, specifically lumping together the very two groups that I was attempting to make a distinction between.

It would also require you to understand what you wrote. You didn't contrast Britain to other European countries. You contrasted the amount in Britain to the amount in the US and implied that Britain was similar to Norway and Finland.

The point is they pay less and have a lower survival rate. What other cool insult do you have now?
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,362
1,219
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
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. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.
Yes, and survival is higher due to early detection, an argument for providing medical coverage to everyone so they can get regular checkups.
Plus I don't see how any of it is an argument against UHC, since a lot of this treatment and testing is paid for by Medicare.

That's the point. We don't have the almighty UHC but still manage to have a higher survival rate. Given the ethnic diversity and population size of the US, I say it's a win for the US.

 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Ignorant statement of the thread right there, seeing how every other case that has been tried delivered better results at a lower cost than our system. In fact, to find a single payer system that performs worse than our system, you have to go all the way down to third world Cuba that spends a tiny fraction of what we do.
http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg
Life expectancy is a horrible way to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system since it includes so many things that have nothing to do with healthcare.

Diet, drug use, violence, even things like automobile accidents all decrease life expectancy.

A much better measure is to look at life expectancy for people AFTER the develop a condition that requires medical attention. When you look at those figures the US kicks ass. Look at our survival rates for cancer compared to other countries and get back to me.

Well I would hope that we do better, according to the American Cancer Society we spend close to three times as much on it as they do. ($315 per person per year on cancer, while Britain spends $119) You can look at Norway, Finland, and other similar countries and find that they have comparable cancer survival rates to the US while spending FAR less.

The question isn't if we can get better care for spending around 50% more than the average country, the question is if we get care that is worth all the extra cash.

I would hate for you to be a sniper because you have a broad definition of close.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

/snip to keep the size of the quote down

I would hate for you to be attempting to debate on an internet message board, because that would require you to be able to read.

I specifically mentioned Norway and Finland. Not only did I say those two countries, but I specifically contrasted them to the UK in terms of survival rates. You then attempt to disprove me by linking a study that examines the differences between the US and Europe as a whole, specifically lumping together the very two groups that I was attempting to make a distinction between.

If that's the case, then why did you compare the costs in the US to the costs in Britain? You directly contrast the costs in the US and then UK, but then go on to state the Norway and Finland have similar survival rates as the US "while spending far less", but fail to produce any numbers or statistics to back up any of your claims. In fact, you specifically avoided providing numbers on survival rates and costs for Norway and Finland, but made the adamant claim that:

"You can look at Norway, Finland, and other similar countries and find that they have comparable cancer survival rates to the US while spending FAR less."

Sounds like you're talking out of your posterior again, especially considering brandonbull provided facts to back up his claims, while you provide...more empty rhetoric.