>Lots of stories and exceptions. England spends about as much per year on the individuals health care as my monthly medical insurance costs.
>
>A friend had a very bad stomach ache. She had insurance (Kaiser). They said she had acid reflex. The problem continued for months with many trips to Kaiser. She went to another hospital and had to pay out of her own pocket for medical care. She had cancer and was dead two months later.
>
>On the tele news they said that over 150,000 Americans die each year of cancer because they have no insurance and cannot afford treatment.

But Tracy's link goes to statistics which show that the US have the highest rate of success in cancer treatment. I figure that this is a case of Mark Twain statistical approach - it does say there, "reported cases".

So... the 150,000 includes those who weren't reported cases, at least not reported for treatment, only post mortem?

>There is a doctor in Marin County who treats cancer. The treatments are expensive and insurance companies will not cover it. His patients have had a 100% survival rate for more than ten years. He treats each incidence of cancer as a separate issue. He does not use one approach as do many doctors.
>
>We need more than medical insurance or health care. We need a competent medical profession that cares for patients.

Actually, possibly the cheapest way is to have doctors who will actually TALK with their patients, give some advice and even listen to what the patient says - and then check the test results, not just look at the results without having the time to talk. This sort of simple human-interactive triage does miracles, but doesn't sell so much medication or expensive machinery, and does require that the doctors have time. Which is then the reason why it can't happen here ((c) Zappa).