It appears that the best place to be for cancer care is the US — you know, the country with the a href=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228552/”42nd lowest life expectancy./a All the media does is tout universal healthcare like that in the UK as something for the US to aspire to–but given the lower rates of cancer survival there, maybe that is not such wise advice. Take a look at a href=”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml”this study/a on the poor cancer survival rates in the UK and the high ones in the US (Hat tip: a href=”http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/08/cancer-survival.html”Tim Worstall/a via a href=”http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/6068-Weds.-Morning-Links.html”Maggie’s Farm/a):br /br /blockquoteCancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced….br /br /England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.br /br /Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists./blockquotebr /br /The US is tops in cancer survival; I would think this analysis would be big news but I have yet to see a positive headline in a US newspaper. Am I missing something?
August 22, 2007 - 5:03 am