<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cancer Death Rates Fall</title>
	<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/</link>
	<description>Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt Horn</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8745</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Horn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8745</guid>
		<description>Who said abolish them?  I was just pointing out that a socialist system would put everyone in the less effective categories.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who said abolish them?  I was just pointing out that a socialist system would put everyone in the less effective categories.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8730</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8730</guid>
		<description>'So if the private sector is doing that much better with clinical outcomes, why is there a push to force a government system for all?'

Without Medicare and Medicaid your outcomes would be far worse. Even Captain Catron doesn't advocate abolishing them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;So if the private sector is doing that much better with clinical outcomes, why is there a push to force a government system for all?&#8217;</p>
<p>Without Medicare and Medicaid your outcomes would be far worse. Even Captain Catron doesn&#8217;t advocate abolishing them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Horn</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8712</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Horn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8712</guid>
		<description>So if the private sector is doing that much better with clinical outcomes, why is there a push to force a government system for all?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if the private sector is doing that much better with clinical outcomes, why is there a push to force a government system for all?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8659</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8659</guid>
		<description>Check this out.

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/01/pfor3-0701.html


'A 2003 study found that among the patients in Kentucky’s Cancer Registry (KCR) database, 31 percent of Medicaid and uninsured patients first presented with stage IV cancer, compared to 17 percent of those with private insurance and 22 percent of those with Medicare [5]. A look at the impact on survival of privately insured compared to uninsured prostate cancer patients showed that 98 percent and 83 percent respectively survived for 3 years; for breast cancer it was 91 percent, and 78 percent; for colorectal cancer, 71 percent and 53 percent; and for lung cancer, 23 percent and 13 percent. Another report showed that the adjusted risk of death four to seven years after diagnosis among breast cancer patients was 49 percent higher for the uninsured and 40 percent higher for Medicaid patients than for privately insured patients '</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check this out.</p>
<p><a href="http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/01/pfor3-0701.html" rel="nofollow">http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/01/pfor3-0701.html</a></p>
<p>&#8216;A 2003 study found that among the patients in Kentucky’s Cancer Registry (KCR) database, 31 percent of Medicaid and uninsured patients first presented with stage IV cancer, compared to 17 percent of those with private insurance and 22 percent of those with Medicare [5]. A look at the impact on survival of privately insured compared to uninsured prostate cancer patients showed that 98 percent and 83 percent respectively survived for 3 years; for breast cancer it was 91 percent, and 78 percent; for colorectal cancer, 71 percent and 53 percent; and for lung cancer, 23 percent and 13 percent. Another report showed that the adjusted risk of death four to seven years after diagnosis among breast cancer patients was 49 percent higher for the uninsured and 40 percent higher for Medicaid patients than for privately insured patients &#8216;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C M Hughes, MD</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8560</link>
		<dc:creator>C M Hughes, MD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8560</guid>
		<description>That's a silver lining: we couold do much better!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a silver lining: we couold do much better!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catron</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8559</link>
		<dc:creator>Catron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:58:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8559</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;I heard a cancer researcher say on NPR today that only 50% of Americans have insurance that pays for most cancer screening, and that we would be doing even better in our overall cancer death rates if we could ensure better screening. &lt;/em&gt;

That would be the "black cloud" I predicted in the last paragraph of the post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>I heard a cancer researcher say on NPR today that only 50% of Americans have insurance that pays for most cancer screening, and that we would be doing even better in our overall cancer death rates if we could ensure better screening. </em></p>
<p>That would be the &#8220;black cloud&#8221; I predicted in the last paragraph of the post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C M Hughes, MD</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8554</link>
		<dc:creator>C M Hughes, MD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8554</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Oh, people dispute it all the time. In fact, the quality of American health care is under constant attack. &lt;/i&gt;

No, people dispute that we have the best overall healthcare in the world,or the best outcomes, which we don't, mainly because of our dysfunctional, fragmented "system." Can you point to somebody saying we don't do a good job with high tech care or trauma or CABGs or cancer? 

It is not the quality of the care that is actually given that is under attack, it is the lack of care given to those without the money to access the system. Or to those thrown out of the system when they can't pay (go see Sicko for some curl-your-toes examples of that).

Do you see the debate from our point of view? America has the capacity to provide far and away the best healthcare in the world and it is a disgrace that we don't because we would rather avoid the bogeyman of creeping socialism rather than making a societal choice to provide the best care we can for all of our citizens in an equitable way, regardless of ability to pay.

More from your link:
&lt;i&gt;"Colorectal cancer incidence rates decreased by more than 2 percent per year for men and women, likely due to prevention through the removal of precancerous polyps," the statement said. These polyps are removed during colonoscopies, which are recommended for everyone over the age of 50.

Drops in the lung cancer rate can be directly linked to reduced tobacco use -- rates are still going up among women, who began smoking in large numbers long after men did, but also began to kick the habit later.

"The long-term federal investment in cancer research is paying off," said Dr. Nancy Davidson, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

"But this impressive pace of progress will slow if we don't recommit to funding cancer research. Adjusted for inflation, cancer research funding has actually declined 12 percent since 2004 -- this has never happened in our nation's history," Davidson added in a statement.

"Without additional funding, the chance to build on the extraordinary progress to date, and provide new treatments for 1.4 million Americans diagnosed with cancer every year, will be delayed or lost."
&lt;/i&gt;
 
Nixon's war on cancer is paying off. The man who broought you the EPA as well. And he waa a &lt;i&gt;conservative&lt;/i&gt; back in the day!

I heard a cancer researcher say on NPR today that only 50% of Americans have insurance that pays for most cancer screening, and that we would be doing even better in our overall cancer death rates if we could ensure better screening. 

Cheers,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Oh, people dispute it all the time. In fact, the quality of American health care is under constant attack. </i></p>
<p>No, people dispute that we have the best overall healthcare in the world,or the best outcomes, which we don&#8217;t, mainly because of our dysfunctional, fragmented &#8220;system.&#8221; Can you point to somebody saying we don&#8217;t do a good job with high tech care or trauma or CABGs or cancer? </p>
<p>It is not the quality of the care that is actually given that is under attack, it is the lack of care given to those without the money to access the system. Or to those thrown out of the system when they can&#8217;t pay (go see Sicko for some curl-your-toes examples of that).</p>
<p>Do you see the debate from our point of view? America has the capacity to provide far and away the best healthcare in the world and it is a disgrace that we don&#8217;t because we would rather avoid the bogeyman of creeping socialism rather than making a societal choice to provide the best care we can for all of our citizens in an equitable way, regardless of ability to pay.</p>
<p>More from your link:<br />
<i>&#8220;Colorectal cancer incidence rates decreased by more than 2 percent per year for men and women, likely due to prevention through the removal of precancerous polyps,&#8221; the statement said. These polyps are removed during colonoscopies, which are recommended for everyone over the age of 50.</p>
<p>Drops in the lung cancer rate can be directly linked to reduced tobacco use &#8212; rates are still going up among women, who began smoking in large numbers long after men did, but also began to kick the habit later.</p>
<p>&#8220;The long-term federal investment in cancer research is paying off,&#8221; said Dr. Nancy Davidson, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.</p>
<p>&#8220;But this impressive pace of progress will slow if we don&#8217;t recommit to funding cancer research. Adjusted for inflation, cancer research funding has actually declined 12 percent since 2004 &#8212; this has never happened in our nation&#8217;s history,&#8221; Davidson added in a statement.</p>
<p>&#8220;Without additional funding, the chance to build on the extraordinary progress to date, and provide new treatments for 1.4 million Americans diagnosed with cancer every year, will be delayed or lost.&#8221;<br />
</i></p>
<p>Nixon&#8217;s war on cancer is paying off. The man who broought you the EPA as well. And he waa a <i>conservative</i> back in the day!</p>
<p>I heard a cancer researcher say on NPR today that only 50% of Americans have insurance that pays for most cancer screening, and that we would be doing even better in our overall cancer death rates if we could ensure better screening. </p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catron</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8546</link>
		<dc:creator>Catron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8546</guid>
		<description>Nope. I'm trying to make the point that, while the system needs some work, it is producing a lot of good outcomes and is certainly not in a "crisis."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nope. I&#8217;m trying to make the point that, while the system needs some work, it is producing a lot of good outcomes and is certainly not in a &#8220;crisis.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8545</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8545</guid>
		<description>What's the point of your last two posts?  Are you arguing for the status quo in medicine?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the point of your last two posts?  Are you arguing for the status quo in medicine?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catron</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8537</link>
		<dc:creator>Catron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/15/cancer-death-rates-fall/#comment-8537</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;We do a lot of things very well, no one disputes that.&lt;/em&gt;

Oh, people dispute it all the time. In fact, the quality of American health care is under constant attack. One example (among many) can be found &lt;a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>We do a lot of things very well, no one disputes that.</em></p>
<p>Oh, people dispute it all the time. In fact, the quality of American health care is under constant attack. One example (among many) can be found <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
