So, the UK did not "report well" but the US did?

And we want to adopt *their* medical system?

Lain you took the words out of my mouth...

why would we want to be like the UK especially after this report. Sorry, I'd rather my mother survive cancer than have socialized medicine.

Oh, I was just posting to say what you two said. Now we can see why everyone is complaining about our healthcare system...right?

Syako, Lainetm, who is calling for the adoption of the UK health system?

I read the article for myself. Once the UK system starting spending more money, their survival rates increased.

I think what this article shows, is that the US has great care, but you have to have money to get it.

Both of the democratic candidates were calling for socialized medicine - free health care - or some form of it. They are against privatized health care and want to socialize it - this is precisely the UK system. And as this report shows, it's not good to have cancer in the UK right now...

MSucre, you are saying that all of the 89% referenced in this article has the money to afford the care that saved their life? I highly doubt that.

"I read the article for myself. Once the UK system starting spending more money, their survival rates increased"

Where is this money coming from?

tax payers pockets = having more money to afford it

This headline seems funny to me. Like, Nations With More Food Have Healthier Citizens.

But this quote is ridiculous:
"Just because you're poor doesn't mean you're unhealthy; it just means you have a lot more time to go running."

Or, you have way less because you're working two jobs to pay your rent...? What does poor have to do with free time?

..."As soon as I said it, I regretted it," she said. "I meant there's no reason that anybody couldn't be healthy at any time."

Well that's good. That sounds like something I would say and then also immediately regret.

The headline is a little obvious. I mean, duh. (No offense to you two, Citizen and Liberty.) It's just that doing the study almost seems like a waste of time.

This doesnt surprise me at all...

"They are against privatized health care and want to socialize it - this is precisely the UK system."

I respect you, but this is so wrong!

They aren't against privatized health care. Any American that wants private health care would be able to get it under Obama's plan. Adding another option does not mean that private insurance would be eliminated or threatened.

"And as this report shows, it's not good to have cancer in the UK right now..."

Not that I want their systems, but to play devil's advocate, Canada and France has socialized health care and they are at the top of the good list as well.

Right after I hit post, I was like, oh snap, Jill's going to swoop in and get me! And you did!

I hope it came across as a gentle swoop, and not a witch on her broom kind of swoop.

My best friend was just diagnosed with breast cancer (age 27). She was in England studying when she found out. They wanted to start treatment right away over there but they told her she would have to get a mastectomy. So she came back to Canada for a second opinion and they only gave her a lumpectomy. I think the problem with the UK system is that it is a little bit dated.

And sorry Syako. Although the wait times for operations and emergency rooms are brutal in Canada, we still get first class care. Montreal has one of the best children's hospital in the world. And it's free for everyone. Yes there are private clinics for those who have money and who don't want to wait for the public system but knowing that the top-tier care is available to all, regardless of income, is refreshing. And knowing that I won't have to take a second mortgage out on my house just to pay for my hospital bills is comforting.

Bleached, your last statement seems to imply that people need to take out a second mortgage to get proper care in the U.S., which is not the case for many, many people. If you have good insurance (which can be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as medical bills), you can get the majority of your care for free or at a vastly discounted price. My grandpa has had three surgeries at the Cleveland Clinic (one of the top hospitals in the country, if not the world) in the past month: two on his heart and one on his lungs. His total out-of-pocket cost? $250

But many, many people do struggle with medical bills. A few years ago a study showed that medical bills were the number one cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.

I have good insurance through my job, but it sill cost me about $1,000 out of pocket last year (for copays, premiums, and prescriptions, no major illness).

I'm sorry, closer to about $2,000. (Math is hard!)

"Bleached, your last statement seems to imply that people need to take out a second mortgage to get proper care in the U.S., which is not the case for many, many people."

It's not the case for anyone in places with socialized healthcare. To me, it just means one less thing to worry about.

Jillness you totally took the words right out of my mouth. I respect all of you sugars (except some trolls haha) - but cmon. This article isn't an indicator that universal health care is bad! First of all, as Jill said- France and Canada also had very high survival rates- both have similar systems as the UK. The article ALSO said that those that can afford insurance are the ones that benefit "White Americans, who are on the whole wealthier and therefore more able to afford the insurance which underpins the US system, were up to 14% more likely than others to survive cancer."

I would like to point out the our cancer survival rates are higher because of advanced research- which is usually paid for by the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and they are under the NIH- who is funded by government AKA tax dollars. The research has very little to do with our health insurance system. Tax payers are funding it.

I don't think $2,000 is really that much. If health care were to be completely socialized, there's a good chance you'd be paying that much more in taxes.

Yes lilkimbo, that is probably true... depending on your tax bracket obvioulsy.
But with taxes, you never actually have it in the first place. It comes right out of your paycheque. So think about it, you get cancer in Canada, treatments are already paid for. Get cancer in the U.S., if you are uninsured, pay 1,500+ per chemo treatment. If you have no savings, that could mean big trouble.

Luckily, $2,000 is something I can definitely afford, but a lot of families can't. (And that includes my portion of my premiums, which I would basically end up paying in taxes, you're right). But my point is that even with excellent insurance (Blue Cross), I still pay a good amount of money out of pocket. And if I got sick (or delivered a baby), it would be a lot more.

But the larger idea is that medical bills cripple the finances of a lot of people. The number one cause of bankruptcy, I think that is crazy.

While it's great that you can come to that conclusion without doing any research, geeb, I think it may be a bit presumptuous to assume that research is the only reason the cancer survival rates are high in our country (although I'm not saying it can't be part of the reason). While I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the system we have now is flawless or even good, I do think that the wrong way to correct the errors is to get the government involved more. Hence, I like McCain's plan of making insurance more accessible, making it more for individuals than based on companies and jobs and making it more portable (i.e. lost job doesn't equal lost insurance), and lowering health care costs and drug prices.

and I totally disagree with this statement:
"Yes lilkimbo, that is probably true... depending on your tax bracket obvioulsy. But with taxes, you never actually have it in the first place. It comes right out of your paycheque."

I do have it. I did earn it. And I don't want more taken out.

Actually no- if we do it correctly and streamline the taxes in a similar fashion to Medicare (the system for the elderly and disabled) - most Americans would probably pay about 2-5% more in taxes and every single one of us would be covered. I don't think 2-5% is that much if I know I am covered even if I were to lose my benefits tomorrow. I know not many feel that way - but I feel that a system like that needs to exist.

Awhile back, I went to a health care conference where a woman from the UN presented and said that Americans consider universal human rights to include freedoms (speech, right to bear arms, etc) whereas many of the European systems consider human rights to include basic human needs such as health care, social services, etc. Interesting.

Actually Syako- I work in cancer research and have been here for nearly 5 years so I do know my stuff. I work at a leading cancer institute that is responsible for many of the medications out there- and believe me that the majority of funding does come from government. Not 100% (of course not- that is ridiculous) but it is a large portion and should not be swept aside.

Actually, yes. Two to 5% more of my income would be about $2,000.

And, for many Americans, 2-5% more of their income would be a lot more than $2,000, and also a lot more than they pay for health insurance/deductibles/co-pays each year.

"I do have it. I did earn it. And I don't want more taken out."

You get used to it... And I have free health care, inexpensive prescriptions and no student loans.

I wasn't sweeping it aside. I was just saying there could be other factors at hand and it is presumptuous to assume... assumption is a common source of error as my husband always points out to me.

I don't want 2-5% more taken out. I like privatized health care and I believe in the free market (even though there are flaws now).

It doesn't matter if you get used to it, it is still incorrect to say that "you never have it in the first place." Not everyone gets taxes directly pulled from his or her paycheck.

I don't want to get used to it!

I don't want to turn over more of my hard earned money.

Obviously you are having trouble understanding basic conservative political theory - which is less federal government involvement and less taxes.

But what about the Americans that don't have jobs and don't qualify for any insurance because they aren't poor enough for Medicaid?? I mean lucky that we are covered because we work -great- but what if you lost your job? What if you opened up a small business and can't afford the $600 or 800 a month insurance companies charge to cover you? Most people dont really consider insurance necessary, they take a gamble- get sick -and then must head to the ER. They could have been treated cheaply had they just had insurance in the first place and instead cost all of our tax money because they end up getting sicker and using costlier means. People forget that we are paying for those that can't afford insurance anyway- but hell of a lot more because people dont want to risk paying whatever money it costs at first. Those costs are eaten up and contribute to our national debt.

I didn't mean for $2,000 to be any kind of significant number for discussion. I'm just saying that even with good health and good insurance, I still had to pay a good amount of money out of pocket for health care.

Even with good health and good insurance, I'd have to pay a lot more if I needed surgery. Or heaven forbid lose my good health and develop a chronic disease. Even with good insurance I could end up paying thousands and thousands over a year for appointments and prescriptions.

geebers, did you even read what I wrote about McCain's plan?

btw it's comment #27.

But what about the Americans that don't have jobs and don't qualify for any insurance because they aren't poor enough for Medicaid?

That's kind of contradictory. If someone doesn't have a job at all, how could he or she not be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid?

And there are cheap insurance plans available for those who are self-employed; they just don't cover quite as much as employer-based coverage or the more expensive plans. If you feel you will require a more expensive plan, that's something you need to take into account before opening your own business. And I don't really know anyone who doesn't consider insurance necessary, do you have some kind of source for that assertion, or is that just your personal opinion? And do you have any source for your assertion that we end up paying more, or, again, is that just your opinion?

Sy- Ive read McCain's plan already and there are some flaws in it to me. For one- yes as you said- he is trying to take away the pressure from employers/jobs (by the way the majority of our system is run this way - I can't find stats- but it is more than 50% of it). Now- I am guessing that most people like their employer plan. Under McCain, jobs no longer have to provide insurance- and people are forced to buy out of their employer's insurance plan and find whatever is out there on their own. Insurance companies still run the show and can still set prices -I know the positive is that they are now competitive and could potentially lower their costs but in reality they no longer have to bargain with big employers and can set prices in the state they are in based on the market. Yes -we get tax credits under McCain to buy costly insurance ourselves but we aren't really targeting the insurance company and the costs - so tax credits could still end up costing individuals thousands of dollars a year more than if we just kept the employer-sponsored insurance plan in the first place.

I hope I am not getting off topic FYI - I am happy to discuss more with you separately! I like talking about this stuff and learning about why people support certain plans. I am someone who wants coverage for all because I believe it saves the nation money in the long-run. I will not deny that it WILL cost us some in the short-run but I honestly think that as time goes on- people will not really notice the increase because the benefits are so great.

people are forced to buy out of their employer's insurance plan and find whatever is out there on their own

Actually, that is not true. Many employers will probably still provide coverage under McCain's plan.

And insurance companies can set prices now based on the market in individual states as well. How would McCain's plan change that?

Also, jobs don't "have" to provide insurance now, either.

As Torg said, there have been many studies that show that the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. I even read that 70% of the people that had to file for bankruptcy for this reason had health insurance when they became ill. Our health insurance industry prides itself on denying coverage, twisting way to many condidtions into the "prexisting condition" category.

Bankruptcy is not good for the US economy. It hurts businesses and citizens alike.

Most cheap insurance policies only cover preventative health care...you are completely screwed if you have any health issues that arise.

I think this is all on-topic.

I have to disagree with you though. I think you hit the nail on the head about the competing aspect. Though I don't think you give it enough credit. Also, I hate that I'm attached to my employer and dependent on it. I am moving to a new state and will have to find a new job and during the intermediary I will have no insurance. I don't like this and it makes me nervous. whereas if I could afford an individual plan, I wouldn't have to worry about moving, losing my job or wanting to change jobs.

Our generation is completely different than the baby boomers, imo. We won't stay with a job for 30-40 years. (again my opinion) We tend to be more floater-esque and we don't hold down jobs with that longevity. So being able to know that my insurance is in my hands makes me feel better.

Re: "And I don't really know anyone who doesn't consider insurance necessary"

I can tell you 13.7 million adults aged 19 to 29 lacked health insurance in 2006, up from 13.3 million in 2005 (per a report from the Commonwealth Fund reported in the WSJ). And I can tell you that a good number of people I worked with when I was younger didn't have health insurance because it wasn't provided by their job. Sure, they could have purchased their own, but obviously they didn't find it necessary.

Actually, Jill, most cheap insurance policies provide coverage for a range of things, just with a higher deductible. I worked in insurance for a while.

lilkimbo- it is not contradictory and actually very true. You have to be unemployed for a length of time before you qualify for medicaid (which is for very low-income familes and individuals) and that can mean 6-12 months before being eligible. That is a really long time to be without insurance. Small business can buy "cheaper" insurance but it still is a big hit for them and doesn;t always provide complete coverage. My parents are an example- they can barely afford basic things we take for granted because they are paying for insurance that isn't even comprehensive. It is only catastrophic coverage and it costs them $500 a person/month - it is the cheapest I could find them. I am able to help them out because I have some knowledge on health care spending accounts and such but I can't imagine how difficult it must be for someone who is out there and has no idea what to do. I just don;t feel it should be that difficult. And FYI -maybe it is my opinion but I have met SEVERAL people who are young and feel insurance isn't necessary or they can't afford it. In fact- some of the people I know are artists, work in retail, or own small business -so yes it is my opinion based on knowing actual people who can't afford insurance and actually when Ive pressed on them to get other options-feel it is a gamble worth taking because it isnt worth the cost. It is not right but people like that are out there.

Also medicaid isn't the best plan at all. You don't get certain coverage in certain states- many of your previous medications you could pay out of pocket. Many people on medicaid are under-insured.