Fewer People Are Dying of Cancer Than Ever Before (theoutline.com)

The number of Americans dying of cancer has dropped to a 25-year low, equaling an estimated 2,143,200 fewer deaths in that period, says the new annual report from the American Cancer Society. In that time, the racial and gender disparities that exist in cancer rates have also narrowed somewhat, but they remain wide in many places. From a report on The Outline: Though the incidence of cancer remained stable for women and dropped slightly -- by 2 percent -- in men, rates remain overall 20 percent higher in men while rate of death for men is 40 percent higher than in women. The rates of both incidence and death vary wildly based on the type of cancer. The data that the ACS is using run through the end of 2014 for incidents of cancer and through 2013 for deaths. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States for both men and women..

Comments

Propaganda?

[zerofoo]

"The report estimates that the Affordable Care Act is working to reduce long-standing racial disparities in cancer rates."

Has the ACA been around long enough to impact cancer rates? The law was passed in 2010 and it took quite a while to get the exchanges up and running, get people enrolled, and then get them to actually see a doctor.

I have a hard time believing that in a few short years, the ACA could have a meaningful impact on cancer rates.

This smells like propaganda.

Re:Propaganda?

[Ionized]

cancer DEATHS, not incidences of new cancer.

yes, it's quite plausible that having insurance for a few years would be the difference between dying to cancer, versus surviving it via radiation and/or chemo, or getting a transplant for a cancerous organ.

Re:Propaganda?

[dgatwood]

In this case, it is. Subsidizing a for-profit company just drives the cost up for everyone, because suddenly the people who could barely afford it can easily afford it, so they can afford to pay more by a sizable percentage of the subsidy amount.

The only viable way to drive insurance costs down is through the public option that the Democrats wanted in the first place and that the Republicans forced them to bury. You'll notice that outside the third world, everybody else has socialized medicine, everybody else has cheaper medical care, and most if it is as good as (if not better than) ours. For critical services that everybody has to have to survive, nothing beats good, old-fashioned socialism. It is when socialism starts to spread into non-critical areas that countries turn into hellholes. Yet somehow, in their zeal for painting socialism as evil, the U.S. right wing has managed to create a system that is worse by preventing socialism in various areas where it is the only viable option, such as healthcare and critical infrastructure.

*sigh*

Re:Cancer is a killer but

[MightyMartian]

So far as I understand it, when people get to any kind of stage 4 cancer, the causes of death are either due to metastasis (the invasion of the cancer into other tissues) or through the tumor severely impacting organs. The whole "chemo is the killer" is simply a meme invented by the alternative medicine quacks to sell you on poppy seed oil or whatever crackpottery they're trying to foist on morons today.

Yes, cancer kills you. Lung cancer, even if it doesn't spread will literally see you slowly asphyxiated as the lungs' ability to absorb oxygen degrades. The fact is that techniques like chemo (which have come a very long way in the last 25 years), radiation and surgey can prolong your life, if not outright save it, whereas 50 or 60 years ago, many cancers were simply a death sentence.

Re:Smoking more, but enjoying it less?

[geekmux]

"Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States for both men and women." This is information that every child should learn.

"The decline in deaths from cancer is attributed largely to the fact that fewer people smoke — from about 42 percent in 1965 to 17 percent in 2013..."

And this is information we should acknowledge before believing that cancer treatments or the ACA has had some kind of massive impact on saving lives, which I'm certain this report will be abused by marketing campaigns for years to come.

Re:Smoking more, but enjoying it less?

[eepok]

Ehh... I think the better tack is to reinforce that preventing cancer is a cheaper and more effective tactic than treating it. As in all things "health and safety", prevention trumps mitigation.

ACA is scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Better solution (I am the one who wrote what you replied to)

Just PAY medical costs for the 20 million who got coverage. Nothing else, just pay for it. It will be LESS than $1 Trillion over 10 years (its cheaper), it will not have a $600 million website (its cheaper), it will not tax blue collar workers who can't afford an ACA plan (its cheaper), and STILL has all the benefits that are CLIAMED by ACA supporters.

Yep, in literally 20 seconds I came up with an easier plan, that is just as effective and CHEAPER for everyone. Of course it doesn't pay off DNC donors and Obama's friends, what the ACA was really about, but I don't really care about that part like you do.

Yes, the ACA is just a way for the DNC to rip off the middle class. It was nothing else.

Re: Lung cancer

[OrangeTide]

That's why I don't bike to work. Choking on car exhaust for a 50 minute bike commute seems worse than 25 minutes in a car that theoretically filters some of the air (at least the larger particles). My clothes are dirty after a bike ride and I get black crud when I blow my nose, I can't imagine that is good for me.