the studies are done using rates per 100,000. If your theory were correct, the U.S. mortality rate for breast cancer victims should be much, much higher than all other countries due to its population and # of incidents of breast cancer (nearly if not the highest)

The US does do well with screening and does have mortality lower than you'd expect from its incidence. I think I said that earlier. ;-) Meanwhile places like China and Japan have much lower mortalities but they also have much lower incidences. IOW mortality by itself isn't very useful without the denominator. Besides, it all has to add up to 100% in the end so if you reduce mortality by x% in one area, there *will* be a corresponding increase elsewhere that has nothing to do with the health system. Which is why we might be better to focus on "increased quality years of life" as a useful measure of health system benefits. If we save a 50-year-old mother of three who lives to 80 without recurrence, we've given her and her family maybe 25 extra quality years. If we treat a 70-year-old with prostate cancer and he never really recovers and develops bedsores and ends up dying of a pulmonary embolus, we've reduced the cancer mortality rate but have we done him a favor? He might have been happy to take a punt on another 5 OK years with a better cure coming along in a year or two.