Slashdot Mirror
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..
14% of all new cancers are lung cancers. 90% of lung cancer is due to smoking. Stop smoking.
"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 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.
folks usually tend to die do to complications associated with Cancer, versus the disease itself.
For example, you get Cancer and go through the treatments.
The treatments absolutely destroy your immune system.
The $common_ailment shows up and kills you because your body cannot defend against it.
In trying to stave off the inevitable, we make it easier for the common cold to kick our ass.
"This smells like propaganda."
No, that's just your brain tumor.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"Fewer People Are Dying of Cancer Than Ever Before"
I'd hazard to posit that fewer people died of cancer in the ancient Mesopotamian era than died in 2016.
You die of something else.
Other causes are now increasing their %share in the gotcha game. (which is probably a good thing since cancer seems a pretty horrible way to die- I'd rather be got by a sudden heart-attack in my sleep).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
See, we ain't need no stinkin' ACA; market forces are solving illnesses.
Market forces will also solve global warming (if real). Humans will evolve fans on their head to keep cool similar to how Kevin Costner evolved gills in Waterworld.
Oh wait, evolution is false. Hollywood brainwashed us. I mean God will blink fans onto human heads, but only if we follow his law and keep gender dodgers out of the wrong restrooms.
What, monitoring genders is gov't regulation you say? You see, many will volunteer to monitor wankers for free. No new taxes needed. I know plenty of conservatives who actually enjoy monitoring wankers.
It all works out logically if you follow all conservative principles rather than just some.
Table-ized A.I.
Somebody trying to raise page views no doubt. There was a time it worked so well site got "slash dotted". Now, not so much. Here is the link that should have been used for this piece...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/cancer-facts-and-figures-death-rate-down-25-since-1991
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
All people will die eventually.
So if fewer people are dying of cancer, it should mean that more people are dying from other causes. I've seen somewhere that Alzheimer is on the raise, maybe that's it.
In developed countries the main causes of death are roughly 1/3 cancer, 1/3 heart diseases, 1/3 others. With cancer death rates steadily increasing passed 60, it can almost be considered dying of old age.
Colon cancer rates dropped thirty percent by 2012 from where it was 10 years earlier. It's been attributed to better screening technology, which can detect and even eliminate pre-cancerous growths....
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/n...
I'm not!
A high deductible is better than NO insurance at all, especially when you are diagnosed with cancer. The law can be charged to require a lower deductible, but that would raise somewhere else to compensate. Democrats have not been against practical changes to ACA.
As far as general ACA criticism, I invite any conservative to propose a better alternative. All the proposals from conservatives so far either don't have any real numbers behind them, or some group or type of coverage takes a hit to help a different group.
There are inherent trade-offs that need to be balanced; there is no free lunch or magic formula. It's easy to complain, but hard to offer alternatives that actually add up. (Single payer has reduced general medical costs overseas, I would note, but arguably creates less choice and longer waits.)
Some have proposed requiring states to accept out-of-state insurance companies to increase competition. For one, this risks trampling on state's rights. Second, states can already optionally allow any outside insurance company they want in by lowering or eliminating state standards. It hasn't reduced their costs in practice. It appears to be a ploy by GOP to reduce patient safeguards (and increase profits) by not allowing states to legislate medical safeguards.
Yes, taking away safeguards will reduce rates for many or most. But, some will then get hit harder with the consequences of lower safeguards. That defeats the very purpose of insurance. GOP seems to want insurance-lite. It's okay to propose such to the public, but be honest that it's really half-ass insurance rather than dress it up in fancy political-speak.
Obama got the Lie-of-the-Year award for implying most or all can "keep your doctor". Don't make the same mistake, GOP, you will also deserve a Lie-of-the-Year award. (I kept my doctor, by the way.)
Table-ized A.I.
My goal as a man is to live a long time. That's because men die on average younger than women. By the time I hit 100 I'll have an endless stream of women all to myself.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I wonder how much this will have to do with our new ability to use Measals to destroy some cancers.
It's all about the Susan G. Komen money machine. Save the boobies and send Susie Q your money, she might do something other than line her pockets with it. Oh and fuck the prostate, men can die.
That plan has proven to work if you're extremely wealthy.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Actually it probably has more to do with lower red meat consumption per capita. Red meat consumption is down 25% per capita.
Screening tech hasn't changed in 10 years. They use the same colonoscopy machines in 2012 that they used in 2002.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-decline-red-meat-america
One problem with cancer is some types are genetically identical to healthy cells, but with some differences in expression, usually expression of a previously inactive oncogene. Other types are mutations to an antioncogene (tumor suppressor gene) that stops it from functioning.
While it might be possible for a retrovirus to select based on a mutated gene, it would have to be custom made for the individual. It would take a rather specialized virus to do it, and it would have to be stable so it didn't mutate and select the nearly identical healthy sequence that is more prevalent. (Life finds a way)
A virus selecting based on gene expression on the other hand has never been done to my knowledge. I'm not aware of any progress in that field, and it may not even be possible with a virus. But maybe you might be able to have a bacteria that creates proteins that help flip the expression around, which could cause cancer cells to divide into health cells.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Just holding out for that hot centerian tail huh?
How many of those who now survive don't become bankrupt in the process?
In civilized countries, with a half-decent social safety net, bankruptcy is not the penalty for surviving illness.
In the short-term you are partly right. But what about the future? Matching the present is one thing, but the future will come.
Also, ACA required a minimum of coverage for a wider set of afflictions than typical insurance of the time. That would go away.
That figure is misleading, it was not just the website in terms of UI, but lots of back-end data coordination with insurance co's, tax records, etc. Get a better news source; your current one failed you.
Speculation on the motivations behind it is probably a useless game because we cannot rip out their neurons to exam the actual motivation calculation path. Most political decisions are probably biased in some way anyhow. It's what humans do and roaches are not in charge (yet). GOP and Trump will make biased decisions also, mark my word.
But at this point it's moot; simply propose something better instead of complain and speculate. Show us how the money flows in the alternative without magic nodes in the flow chart. If you don't like the model, make a better one. (Same goes for climate models.)
We are supposed to be nerds who think things out and present details that add up, rather than just be platitude hawkers. That's for muggles.
Table-ized A.I.
How many of those who now survive don't become bankrupt in the process?
The capitalistic dick of greed will gladly fuck you over from birth to death, and not think twice about the financial pain endured.
All the more reason assisted suicide will not be legalized anytime soon. They sure as hell don't want you taking the easy way out, and before they get all your money.
burdening the generation at its peak earning potential with caring for aging parents
Those aging parents are why you have as high an earning potential as you do now. They invented, built, and maintained the very society that did such things as preventing you from being murdered in your crib by roving bands of savages and giving you pernicious worldwide communications capabilities. Many still have wisdom to contribute even in senescence.
Someone had to do it.
I can definitely see less smoking being a huge contributor to lower cancer rates. It's no surprise that lung cancer is still the most prevalent cause of cancer death though. Smokers are almost guaranteed to have expensive health issues later in life, and a shorter lifespan overall. Consider that more than half the male population and almost 30% of the female population smoked in the 50s, and in 2017 smokers in the US and many other countries are relegated to a sad little corner away from basically any public place. People used to smoke heavily in their offices, their homes, etc. In the circles I run in it's very rare to find smokers; if they are they're older and just don't want to quit...in for a penny in for a pound I guess!
If the study went back further than 1991, I'd also think that deindustrialization and environmental regulation in the US might have something to do with it. Around the 70s and 80s was the time people got serious about not letting companies dump toxic waste into the groundwater, and companies also offshored a lot of their manufacturing. Reduction of air pollution might also contribute - it still amazes me when I drive through big cities with terrible traffic and imagine thousands of pre-catalytic converter 1970s GM/Ford/Chrysler V8 tanks pumping crap into the air.
That said, I don't think I'd want to fight cancer if it turned out I had it. I'd rather have the option of a quick painless death than endless rounds of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery that would only give me a few years of painful life at best. We can't live forever -- even though average lifespan keeps increasing. What kind of shape would most people be in at 100? 110? 115? I'd rather get my 85 or so years in and make the most of them than end up in a progression from assisted living to nursing home to the hospital. It really seems like cancer is an evolutionary check on longevity given that it's a spontaneous uncontrolled cell growth. Pediatric and mid-life cancer is sad, but cancer at an old age is almost expected.
Eat more chicken!
Eat the rich.
Could we ask that the headlines indicate when it's only in the US?
"Fewer Americans Are Dying of Cancer Than Ever Before"
Voters hate the ACA, but they hate the way it was before*, and they hate the "socialized" version that most of the world has.
So, what the hell do they want then?
GOP/Trump have pushed the idea that there are easy fixes that ONLY they know how to do using some unspecified side-effect-free deregulation and making "great deals". Your turn guys; you hyped the magic beans, now grow your bean stalk and make the Giant pay for it. Else, you'll get F'd like H by restless voters.
* I've seen multiple surveys showing only around 20 to 25% want to go back to the way it was during the W years. That suggests they want SOME kind of Federally-managed health insurance.
Table-ized A.I.
> Too bad for you, that's a not actually plan, as you're just hand-waving it as a solution.
It's a perfect plan actually. It's not that far from other things that have been done already.
Concentrate on the problem that need fixing rather than trying to sabotage the private market and push for more socialism when the first batch of it fails.
Instead, you lot saddled private insurance customers with all of the uninsurable types that would go onto Medicare if they were older or permanently disabled. You trashed the risk pool and put it all on people that can't really handle it.
ACA is actually pretty d*am regressive for something that's sold as "progressive".
You don't see it because you're blinded by partisanship.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's been around long enough to impact Survival Rates. I've had (young) family members who survived cancer because they got treatment. That treatment cost millions and was paid for by taxpayers. There's no other way, it's just too expensive to keep them alive otherwise. For get taking a village. It takes a country. In poorer regions that money comes from ACA in the form of the medicaid expansion. Without it those kids don't get treatment. They die.
This isn't hyperbole. It's one of those 'inconvenient truths' folks don't like to talk about. And yes, I know that term is loaded. That's my point. It's the same as Climate Change. It's easy as hell to turn away from it. People are going to die when the ACA is repealed. Many of them children. And nobody, and I mean nobody is talking about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you're seeing short term costs rise as people who put off treatment for years are finally getting it. Long term costs go down as preventative care does it's job and people use less of the really expensive stuff.
Now, just because the insurance company's costs go down doesn't mean yours will. Left alone they'll just pocket it all. That's where the public option (aka single payer) comes in.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but you need access to medical treatment early on to do so. Total Biscuit of youtube fame got it (he's British, single payer) and he's in remission and just fine. I've got a family member in the same boat and I've known a survivor of childhood leukemia in her mid thirties who's just fine. The key is early detection and treatment.
Now, as an American you're probably screwed unless your independently wealthy. But we prefer to play the odds. We treat luck as a skill. Something you cultivate (often by praying). That's not rational, but most of us aren't.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
of course we realize it. We're utterly terrified.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You are full of it. She said that because there were rushed last-minute changes, as always with big legislation. It's not a plot to hide stuff.
And GOP has been given plenty of opportunities to propose an alternative that mathematically adds up, but fail.
Table-ized A.I.
Voters hate the ACA, but they hate the way it was before*, and they hate the "socialized" version that most of the world has.
The majority of voters would have supported Bernie Sanders, who would have supported single payer health care. You know, that "socialized" version that most of the world has. I disagree with your fundamental premise. Voters want either insurance that works for them, or insurance companies out of health care. They don't want money taken out of their pockets by force by men with guns and handed to insurance companies, which is precisely what the ACA represents.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It was a dumb statement, but immaterial to anything of importance. You are distracted by shiny things.
You completely ignored my points, bragging about winning the election instead. You cannot vote the world flat, although you seem to have voted your forehead flat.
Table-ized A.I.
From TFA: "Although the cancer death rate remained 15% higher in blacks than in whites in 2014, increasing access to care as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) may contribute to a further narrowing of the racial gap across all population groups. In 2015, 11% of blacks and 7% of non-Hispanic whites were uninsured, compared with 21% of blacks and 12% of non-Hispanic whites in 2010. Progress for Hispanics is similar, with the uninsured rate dropping from 31% in 2010 to 16% in 2015."
If conservatives don't kill off Obamacare quickly enough, there's a chance some of those non-whites might survive to voting age...and not be too sick to get to the polls.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I am about to buy sports air filters that should save your lungs while making sure you still exercise.
This is the model I plan to buy within the next few weeks.
I have no affiliation with this company and I haven't tried them yet, but the research may prove fruitful for you.
Healthcare is a good. How can one have a right to a good?
We abolished slavery long ago. What do you call a doctor who is forced by the government to treat patients? If we ever encounter a doctor shortage - would you use the power of Government to force doctors out of retirement to treat patients?
The people that provide our healthcare are not the slaves of those that need medical care. They are laborers and should sell their labor as every other laborer does.
Forcing everyone to pay for this is only one side of the coin - to declare healthcare an inalienable human right - you need to enslave doctors.
After they have cured all disease, then we can mock all the people in hospitals. Dying for no reason.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Yeah but usually it seems to be people I'm keen on not having dying. Relatives, friends - you know the type. Arsehole dictators and general mongrels seem unrepresented in those stats. Yes, I do realise the sample sizes are different but Fuck Cancer.