Here at the Devoish BS Market Watch, it is our responsibility to investigate all things BS related, and keep our readers current on all BS developments.
This includes monitoring the volumes of BS generated by the healthcare debate. Last night we were watching c-span cover the the first tri-committee hearing on healthcare reform, and fortunately missed the complete failure to score by both of NY's major league baseball teams. At the 1hour and eight minute mark of the second panel discussion, our diligence was rewarded by the mention of the prostrate which as everyone knows is BS relevent by its proximity to poop outlets.
Oregon Reresentative, Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers, made the claim that the US for profit insurer healthcare system has a 92% survival rate for prostrate cancer, as compared to 51% for the UK's public system.
Holy Sh** I cannot write, so Holy Poop instead. This flies right in the face of other facts that indicate the public systems are better and less expensive. Facts like longer life expectancys, and better infant survivals, which while not conclusive of public systems being better, certainly also slam the door on most assertions that the US private system has better results.
This prostrate poop could be a game changer though, and certainly deserved investigation. So being old tech, we did not Bing or Bang prostrate cancer, we Googled it.
We learned that Rudy Giuliani also made a similar claim during the Republican primary which was disputed, which Representative McMorris Rodgers may not have heard about.
Rudy's October 2007 campaign statement was based on a report that 5 year survival rates for prostrate cancers using data from 1995-99 were substantially better in the USA than in the UK.
In 1990 the "twenty years ago" US healthcare system did something right. We began screening for prostrate cancers. The UK system did not.
Because the UK did not diagnose prostrate cancer until symptoms developed, patients were at risk and already in advanced stages of the disease when diagnosed and they did not live very long.
Because the USA screened, prostate cancer was diagnosed at early stages, long before symptoms develop and patients lived a long time after early stage diagnosis. Regardless of our ability to treat the disease.
Good for us.
Of course the road to better healthcare is a long one and where you are matters, as does which way you are moving, toward better or worse.
The UK began screening for prostate cancer in the late 90,s. A more recent study based upon data from 2000-2002 found that the UK 5 yr survival rate hade improved to 79% because they to, had begun diagnosing prostate cancer long before it became life theateing.
Good for them.
The fact that in the USA early prostate cancer diagnosis does not improve life expectancy, or prostate cancer outcomes is being used to suggest "cost savings" could be achieved by doing fewer screenings.
Bad for us?
The difference in death rate/100,000 between the USA and the UK is almost nothing, but slightly better in the USA, 23.6/100,000 to 25/100,000 based upon the most recent stats I could find.
The UK is also among the worst of the European national systems at prostate cancer.
In both countries more than 90% of those deaths occur in men over age 65.
My comment to Mr Guiliani;
I do not care which country I am diagnosed in, as the outcome is the same. I would rather be billed much less by the public UK system, or Single Payer H.R.676
My comment to Representative McMorris Rodgers;
Please learn to google, and use current information. If your facts are poor, your decisions will be too.
My comment to the Citizens of Oregon. Please buy Miss McMorris Rodgers a computer and internet connection if she does not have one. Collect taxes for it, don't use credit.
Here at the Devoish BS Market Watch, we are unconcerned as this is not new BS, but rather a repeating of old BS and should not affect BS volumes or market value.
Note to the United States Congress. The health insurance industry adds no value to health outcomes. It detracts.