Al Franken Confronts Scholar on Health Care Bankruptcy in U.S.

Al Franken is wrong anyway.

Numbers in cancer rates are deeply misleading if we use them to judge the quality of a heath care system. This is due to small sample sizes, demographics, population variance, income distribution etc etc. Also, no (reliable) study has been done in the United States in the last 10 years where we've seen less coverage due to insurance premiums rapidly outpacing inflation. This is important to note, since this will give the U.S. a peachier estimate whereas the other countries studies have remained largely unchanged, fundamentally anyway.

I'll be using the Concord study (because its the largest and most sound study available), for my information, it tends to agree with most other studies of similar sample size.

I'm throwing out obviously terrible systems like the UKs, and concentrate on a few of the better examples of gov run health care .

Breast Cancer:

The U.S. sits at, on average, somewhere between 82% to 87% survival rate. An "average" number is a bit disingenuous due to the huge regional disparities between survival rates. Looking at the data, extrapolating slightly a fair number would be about 82-83% survival on average. The study gets 84%, but I don't believe they used sufficiently rigorous techniques (something statisticians pointed out against the study actually). However, in some areas the numbers plummet, going as low as 75% on average. If you are African-American it is particularly problematic where in some areas you can see the survival rates sitting as low as 65% with your average survival rate with treatment is 70% (the study cited lack of adequate access to health care as the cause btw). You'll see these type of discrepancies between races across the board on all the cancers in the U.S..

Canada: Survival rates range from 79.3% to 85.4% in Canada, the average being around 82.5%. There is no discernible difference based on the sample size.

Japan: Japan, good old gov care with a nationally administered insurance program. Survival rate sits at 81.6% ranging from 79.4% to 87.3% depending on your province. However, it is very important to note here that Japanese woman are more likely to have a specific type of BRCA1 genetic mutation that causes a greater risk of breast cancer and tends to make it more aggressive. That has to be put in light of the survival rates. Thus, I'd say Japan is slightly better since the U.S. survival rate for Japanese woman with breast cancer is lower.

Sweden: Sweden sits at about 82.0% survival rate, with certain areas seeing numbers in the 89% region range (typically the richest areas). There aren't huge disparities like in the U.S. and the difference in estimated survival based on populations sample is statistically indiscernible. Thus, Sweden is better.

Switzerland: Surprisingly similar to our numbers. The poorer and less economically advantageous ones sit at around 72-75% whereas the urban areas are much higher, averaging out in the end at around 82%, this is statistically indiscernible. So, we are about the same.

Now that I got the explanations about regional disparities, I'll just go straight to the numbers in the remaining ones.

Colon Cancer:

Canada: Once again, Canada is slightly worse off than we are; again, just barely from a statistical prospective.

Japan: Japan is significantly superior in men (54-57% versus 63%) and statistically indiscernible in woman.

Sweden: Indiscernible.

Switzerland: There isn't enough data in Switzerland to say either way.

Rectal Cancer:

Canada: The U.S. is superior for men by a long shot and only marginally better for woman. I'm puzzled by the disparity actually since the other cancers don't show such a large difference. So, we are better here. However, if you are black woman, move to Canada since your survival rate drops below 50% where its 58% for women in Canada

Japan: Indiscernible for men, and only slightly discernible statistically for woman. Basically, there is no difference.

Sweden: The numbers are nearly identical, statistically indiscernible.

Switzerland: Not enough data.

Prostate Cancer:

These are worthless since screening has only recently begun to be widely used in other countries whereas it was relatively standard medical procedure here, meaning the rates in this study aren't worth looking at.

So, Sweden and Japan beat us overall. Sweden being a universal heath care system and Japan having a strong public option coupled with private insurance. Switzerland we are about the same as and they use private insurance, however, the government prevents the mandatory coverage packages from producing profit for the insurance companies (they make it from supplementary insurance). Canada is slightly worse than we are, with a single-payer system.

The numbers show that well-done government health care isn't worse off at all, at least in terms of cancer rates despite conservatives citing this constantly.

If you were not laughing at this you are sadly humourless. I love deadpan, but even pickier consumers gotta love his bedside manner (this is the Senate remember, not SNL).

If you can not appreciate the severity of this discussion, I would ask that everyone get more informed. The whole point is that the universal systems are cheaper - not free. No one is using that word genuously.

Her position was indefensible, and there is nothing left but murky stubborness and plain old selfishness in defense of our profit based health care system.

Al Franken correctly points out that the study highlights "easily survivable" cancers and that we have a higher survival rate. So, if we have a better survival rate of the "easily survivable" cancers, what does that say about the other system? They can't even take care of the low hanging fruit , but we want to have them go for the stuff on the top? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.