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.
"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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
"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.
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!
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.
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
Cars are the number #1 killer of teens. (ages 12-19)
Cars are the number #1 killer of children. (ages 1-12)
Heart disease is the #1 killer of adults. (I couldn't find data on the age range, I assume 20+)
Congenital defects and complication of preterm birth nearly tying as the #1 killer of infants. (ages 1)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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'll have to respectfully disagree with you here.
The last few years of life for folks with cancer is typically anything but pleasant. In and out of hospitals, in terrible health, life savings dwindling away to pay for treatments and they really look like the living dead. One parent died from complications from Breast Cancer ( lungs kept filling with fluid ), another nearly died recently due to what the chemo treatments have done to their immune system. ( Flu showed up and went into a frenzy since the body has nothing to fight it with )
Thus my ( now downmodded to Flamebait ) previous statement.
I think I would rather die quickly and be done with it rather than drag it out knowing what kind of quality of life awaits.
At least my beneficiaries will be able to use my savings instead of it going to pay for treatments that will ultimately fail me anyway.
Eat more chicken!
Eat the rich.