Look at the chart here from Aug 2007 for overall cancer survival rates:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

Here is a 2008 article on a study that was printed in Canada that reflects how well Canada is doing (but not as good as the U.S. yet):
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/?hub=MedExpress&subhub=PrintStory

Surprisingly, Cuba did well. What it does show is that early screening is important in order to provide the most effective treatment as early as possible. Those 'unecessary test' that folks who rave about European care are what catch cancer earlier. It may be more expensive here because we do insist on a lot of tests, but it also saves lives.

The 2008 results:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

The key is to provide the same quality and availability of treatment in a universal system at an affordable rate. Notice I did not write cheap rate, but an affordable one.

There are three HUGE problems with Obama's plan: 1) it is too expensive for this point in time 2) it restricts availability of choice for private insurance 3) it puts caps on care to prevent 'overutilization.'

There are more problems with it than those three, but those are the three key things that are most disturbing about it. They need to go back to the table and come up with a better plan and then discuss implememting it when the economy is not crashing.

We are in the midst of a terrible political and national threat with our economy surviving only based on money from a couple of countries who could pull the plug at any time. That has to take precedence until it is fixed and the economy is self-sustaining.


>I've bookmarked the page you indicated and will have a run through it. There's a lot of stuff there. In the meantime, here is a chart from the WHO that shows that in 2006, Canada's mortality rate (age adjusted) from cancer was 1.029 times that of the U.S. (scroll right). When you put that together with the incredible difference in amount spent as a %age of GDP, I'd say Canada is way ahead of the game. Having said that, I admit that I have not yet had time to go through all the stuff attached to your url.
>
>>>Here's an opinion piece that appeared in today's Toronto Star. Thought you might find it interesting.
>>>
>>>http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/668161
>>
>>My problem with the Canadian system is specifically related to the costs. Namely, the cost limits of a government program lead to rationing, inferior access to technology and, most importantly, lack of patient control over their own care. I disagree with any system which removes the decision making process from the doctor and patient and puts it in the hands of a third party, be they a government entity or an insurance company. Further, it does not bother me that American health care costs more than the rest of the world, our level of care is worth paying for.
>>
>>That's not to say there aren't tremendous savings to be had through certain reforms, but moving towards central planning is the exact opposite.
>>
>>My simple response to this opinion piece would be to point out a single case like cancer treatment. 3 of the most prevalent are breast, prostrate and colon. Canada's mortality rate for these cancers is 9% higher for breast, 10% higher for colon and 184% higher for prostrate. If we immediately switch to Canadian health care, who chooses who dies from the lack of cancer prevention, detection and care. More importantly, how much of that supposed trillion dollar savings will be eaten up by malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits?
>>
>>FWIW : The Canadian system does appear to be much better than much western Europe. Some of their mortality rates are 100s of percent higher than the US.
>>
>>There's a lot of other interesting fact packed into this as well.
>>http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649