Cancer Survival Rates differ in Britain based on Locality and trail European Survival Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Despite Britain’s national health care British patients don’t receive equal health care.  Or equal chances of survival.  For all hospitals in the NHS are not the same.  Despite that being one of the driving arguments for national health care.  So everyone has access to quality care.  Not just the rich.  Or the otherwise located (see Jeremy Hunt: cancer postcode lottery ‘cannot be right’ by Rowena Mason posted 12/10/2012 on The Telegraph).

Jeremy Hunt, who took over the role in September, said it “cannot be right” that some patients have a worse chance of surviving because they do not live near the best hospitals…

Last night, he expressed disbelief at the huge variation in survival rates for bowel cancer patients within five years of diagnosis based on their location.

“It cannot be right that the five-year survival rate for colorectal cancer varies between areas – 68 per cent in the highest and 40 per cent in the lowest,” Mr Hunt said last night…

Five-year survival rates for bowel cancer have more than doubled over the last 40 years, but British patients still have a higher chance of dying from the disease than in many parts of Europe…

For some cancer types, survival rates are 10 to 15 per cent lower in England than in comparable countries like Australia, Canada and Sweden.

Here’s why your chances are better of dying from colorectal cancer in the UK than in Australia, Canada and Sweden.  Costs.  National health care is very, very expensive.  And the more patients you have the greater these costs are.  But if the costs grow so great for, say, an aging population, nations with more patients may have to make budget cuts, increase wait times and ration services more than nations with fewer patients.  As the NHS is doing.

The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Sweden because the UK has over 6 times (6.52) the population Sweden has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Australia because the UK has almost 3 times (2.73) the population Australia has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Canada because the UK has almost twice (1.78) the population Canada has.  And the United States under Obamacare will not be able to fight cancer as well as the UK because the United States has 5 times (5.06) the population the UK has.

The smaller the population the easier national health care is.  Because fewer patients means less cost.  No one has ever tried national health care on the scale the United States is about to try under Obamacare.  Or what Obamacare will morph into once it drives the private health insurance companies out of the market.  And the worst thing is that unlike patients in the UK, Canada, Australia and Sweden who had the option of traveling to the United States for better health care, there will be no place for Americans to travel to once Obamacare reduces the quality of American health care.  Just a pill to take to manage our pain until we feel pain no more.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.

Blog Home