London is HORRIBLE

[Anonymous]

And many employed Brits who don’t have private health care would still choose NHS over paying for health insurance. As a young healthy person, I definitely would (though I did have private health insurance through work). No question at all that American healthcare is better than the NHS, but if you’re young and healthy, it’s nice not to have to pay anything for health care and still know you’ll have access to it if needed. I think many employed Americans would choose that if they could

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the life expectancy in the UK is way higher than the US. The results speak for themselves. Don’t confuse having a lot of healthcare with having good healthcare.

Someone who doesn’t understand life expectancy, which is not a measure of health care… gun violence, suicide, drug overdose and efforts to save extremely premature babies all skew U.S. life expectancy down because these things kill young people. With the exception of premature babies (although infant mortality is also on the rise), these are terrible problems for our society, but do not reflect the quality of our health care. Also, we import millions of people from the Third World each year and despite our efforts and expenditures, these people do die earlier for a number of reasons.

Beat me to it.

In addition, minority, specifically black people, specifically black women have very poor health outcomes that transcend income brackets and national borders. Some of that is racism of different manifestations, but most of it is a result in (US led) advances that determine prior assumptions about all people being the same were wrong. Clinical trials, health studies, etc simply didn’t include enough minorities under the assumption that everyone was the same in the inside. We are just beginning to peel back that onion but it helps explain why US has certain poorer health outcomes. We are the only advanced economy with such a diverse population. NHS isn’t setting the world on fire with care of those of african descent. There’s just not as many of them to skew the numbers.

So you have compounding problems, poor people receive worse care, minorities receive care not necessarily personalized for them, gun violence, drug abuse, efforts to save extremely premature births, and others factors that skew the life expectancy.

There’s not a 65 year old Brit alive who would prefer the NHS to Medicare, nor is there an employed Brit who would prefer NHS to the PPO options the vast majority of employed Americans have access to.

There are models of universal coverage that make sense… single payer just isn’t one of them.

That part isn’t true. Many employed Brits have private health insurance through their jobs and it is much much cheaper than health insurance here, and pretty similar in terms of what you get.

But who cares anyway? Why is this now a referendum on which is a better country to live in? OP isn’t becoming British, she’s just there for a short time and should try to find ways to enjoy herself - British life expectancy shouldn’t really come into it

Yes it is, their private health insurance is pretty limiting. And what they pay OOP for premiums/co pays can’t be compared to PPO premiums because they’re also paying for NHS, which is a massive cost on their salaries. And even with private health insurance they don’t have the same access to specialists and sub specialists as Americans with health insurance do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And many employed Brits who don’t have private health care would still choose NHS over paying for health insurance. As a young healthy person, I definitely would (though I did have private health insurance through work). No question at all that American healthcare is better than the NHS, but if you’re young and healthy, it’s nice not to have to pay anything for health care and still know you’ll have access to it if needed. I think many employed Americans would choose that if they could

The NHS isn’t any more “free” than our national defense is free. Everyone pays for it and it consumes a huge portion of their national budget with tax rates already higher than ours. There is the direct cost plus the opportunity cost.

There are plenty of systems to compare to but NHS just isn’t it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the life expectancy in the UK is way higher than the US. The results speak for themselves. Don’t confuse having a lot of healthcare with having good healthcare.

Someone who doesn’t understand life expectancy, which is not a measure of health care… gun violence, suicide, drug overdose and efforts to save extremely premature babies all skew U.S. life expectancy down because these things kill young people. With the exception of premature babies (although infant mortality is also on the rise), these are terrible problems for our society, but do not reflect the quality of our health care. Also, we import millions of people from the Third World each year and despite our efforts and expenditures, these people do die earlier for a number of reasons.

Beat me to it.

In addition, minority, specifically black people, specifically black women have very poor health outcomes that transcend income brackets and national borders. Some of that is racism of different manifestations, but most of it is a result in (US led) advances that determine prior assumptions about all people being the same were wrong. Clinical trials, health studies, etc simply didn’t include enough minorities under the assumption that everyone was the same in the inside. We are just beginning to peel back that onion but it helps explain why US has certain poorer health outcomes. We are the only advanced economy with such a diverse population. NHS isn’t setting the world on fire with care of those of african descent. There’s just not as many of them to skew the numbers.

So you have compounding problems, poor people receive worse care, minorities receive care not necessarily personalized for them, gun violence, drug abuse, efforts to save extremely premature births, and others factors that skew the life expectancy.

There’s not a 65 year old Brit alive who would prefer the NHS to Medicare, nor is there an employed Brit who would prefer NHS to the PPO options the vast majority of employed Americans have access to.

There are models of universal coverage that make sense… single payer just isn’t one of them.

That part isn’t true. Many employed Brits have private health insurance through their jobs and it is much much cheaper than health insurance here, and pretty similar in terms of what you get.

But who cares anyway? Why is this now a referendum on which is a better country to live in? OP isn’t becoming British, she’s just there for a short time and should try to find ways to enjoy herself - British life expectancy shouldn’t really come into it

Yes it is, their private health insurance is pretty limiting. And what they pay OOP for premiums/co pays can’t be compared to PPO premiums because they’re also paying for NHS, which is a massive cost on their salaries. And even with private health insurance they don’t have the same access to specialists and sub specialists as Americans with health insurance do.

Use a payroll calculator to see what the take home pay difference is between the two countries - taking into account state taxes, health insurance etc. You’ll be surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately you chose where to live very poorly. Mayfair is centrally locally and looks lovely, but is incredibly expensive and so is largely the base for US hedge funds and very rich jetsetty international types (eg Middle Eastern oil money, etc). There is no sense of community and is rather soulless. It has a weird "rich international" vibe. I cannot imagine anything more different from Takoma Park. Can you move?

A 2 million pound place in Mayfair is vastly different to a 2 million pound place in other parts of London. Unfortunately, the price tag is for the area, not the quality of the house or flat.

I have plenty of friends who live in places like Richmond, Hampstead, East London, etc which have a far greater sense of community. These places tend to have historically evolved from outlying villages based around a common or park and you see that now in how they are laid out. There tends to be a big park or common and a high street with shops, cafes, etc. My friends do Park Run in their local park on the weekend which attracts people in their surrounding community. They do yoga classes in church halls etc. They meet people walking their dogs in the local park since that tends to be the only large green space in the area.

Regarding food, you need to go further afield. 25% of London's population was born overseas so there are vast diasporas and communities there. But, as I said, Mayfair caters to an entirely different set. You need to get out of there to find good food.

Social life can be based around the pub. Part of the reason is that people often live in small residences so they tend to get out to meet up. But going to the pub doesn't necessarily mean drinking heavily. Some have quiz nights, others have music. Often, if I go to London and catch up with friends at a pub, we might only have 1 or 2 drinks. On weekends, people often take their families to pubs for a meal etc.

I agree- Mayfair is the worst place to live. It's a money laundering haven. Richmond is far out but lovely, if you are stuck there for 2 more years. Id pull up stakes and move to Hampstead or Kew or even Wimbledon. no need to go to east London, southlondn is bad enough just dont live anywhere a Saudi or Russian oligarch would want live and you'll be fine.also there are still no actual British people in London, even the 2nd gen immigrants have moved out to Surrey and Essex so you should be able to experience a very global set of new acquaintances and they arent all rude b/c well, they arent even all teh same culture! in your place I'd move to Kew garden area, its so cozy , very green and charming and I love the book shops and boutiques. I grew up staying with relatives in Putney but they've all moved to the country and so we get a car and stay in kew, can still be in central London quick and out to see family fast plus Gatwick is super close for mini breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately you chose where to live very poorly. Mayfair is centrally locally and looks lovely, but is incredibly expensive and so is largely the base for US hedge funds and very rich jetsetty international types (eg Middle Eastern oil money, etc). There is no sense of community and is rather soulless. It has a weird "rich international" vibe. I cannot imagine anything more different from Takoma Park. Can you move?

A 2 million pound place in Mayfair is vastly different to a 2 million pound place in other parts of London. Unfortunately, the price tag is for the area, not the quality of the house or flat.

I have plenty of friends who live in places like Richmond, Hampstead, East London, etc which have a far greater sense of community. These places tend to have historically evolved from outlying villages based around a common or park and you see that now in how they are laid out. There tends to be a big park or common and a high street with shops, cafes, etc. My friends do Park Run in their local park on the weekend which attracts people in their surrounding community. They do yoga classes in church halls etc. They meet people walking their dogs in the local park since that tends to be the only large green space in the area.

Regarding food, you need to go further afield. 25% of London's population was born overseas so there are vast diasporas and communities there. But, as I said, Mayfair caters to an entirely different set. You need to get out of there to find good food.

Social life can be based around the pub. Part of the reason is that people often live in small residences so they tend to get out to meet up. But going to the pub doesn't necessarily mean drinking heavily. Some have quiz nights, others have music. Often, if I go to London and catch up with friends at a pub, we might only have 1 or 2 drinks. On weekends, people often take their families to pubs for a meal etc.

I agree- Mayfair is the worst place to live. It's a money laundering haven. Richmond is far out but lovely, if you are stuck there for 2 more years. Id pull up stakes and move to Hampstead or Kew or even Wimbledon. no need to go to east London, southlondn is bad enough just dont live anywhere a Saudi or Russian oligarch would want live and you'll be fine.also there are still no actual British people in London, even[b] the 2nd gen immigrants have moved out to Surrey and Essex so you should be able to experience a very global set of new acquaintances and they arent all rude b/c well, they arent even all teh same culture! in your place I'd move to Kew garden area, its so cozy , very green and charming and I love the book shops and boutiques. I grew up staying with relatives in Putney but they've all moved to the country and so we get a car and stay in kew, can still be in central London quick and out to see family fast plus Gatwick is super close for mini breaks.

Don’t be absurd!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the life expectancy in the UK is way higher than the US. The results speak for themselves. Don’t confuse having a lot of healthcare with having good healthcare.

Someone who doesn’t understand life expectancy, which is not a measure of health care… gun violence, suicide, drug overdose and efforts to save extremely premature babies all skew U.S. life expectancy down because these things kill young people. With the exception of premature babies (although infant mortality is also on the rise), these are terrible problems for our society, but do not reflect the quality of our health care. Also, we import millions of people from the Third World each year and despite our efforts and expenditures, these people do die earlier for a number of reasons.

Beat me to it.

In addition, minority, specifically black people, specifically black women have very poor health outcomes that transcend income brackets and national borders. Some of that is racism of different manifestations, but most of it is a result in (US led) advances that determine prior assumptions about all people being the same were wrong. Clinical trials, health studies, etc simply didn’t include enough minorities under the assumption that everyone was the same in the inside. We are just beginning to peel back that onion but it helps explain why US has certain poorer health outcomes. We are the only advanced economy with such a diverse population. NHS isn’t setting the world on fire with care of those of african descent. There’s just not as many of them to skew the numbers.

So you have compounding problems, poor people receive worse care, minorities receive care not necessarily personalized for them, gun violence, drug abuse, efforts to save extremely premature births, and others factors that skew the life expectancy.

There’s not a 65 year old Brit alive who would prefer the NHS to Medicare, nor is there an employed Brit who would prefer NHS to the PPO options the vast majority of employed Americans have access to.

There are models of universal coverage that make sense… single payer just isn’t one of them.

That part isn’t true. Many employed Brits have private health insurance through their jobs and it is much much cheaper than health insurance here, and pretty similar in terms of what you get.

But who cares anyway? Why is this now a referendum on which is a better country to live in? OP isn’t becoming British, she’s just there for a short time and should try to find ways to enjoy herself - British life expectancy shouldn’t really come into it

Yes it is, their private health insurance is pretty limiting. And what they pay OOP for premiums/co pays can’t be compared to PPO premiums because they’re also paying for NHS, which is a massive cost on their salaries. And even with private health insurance they don’t have the same access to specialists and sub specialists as Americans with health insurance do.

Use a payroll calculator to see what the take home pay difference is between the two countries - taking into account state taxes, health insurance etc. You’ll be surprised.

And then you have to add private insurance on top of the British costs.

There’s no way to say that you have higher take home pay in Britain, with private insurance, than you do in the US. Especially when you consider corporate taxes put pressure on wages of professionals, making wages lower to begin with in Britain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately you chose where to live very poorly. Mayfair is centrally locally and looks lovely, but is incredibly expensive and so is largely the base for US hedge funds and very rich jetsetty international types (eg Middle Eastern oil money, etc). There is no sense of community and is rather soulless. It has a weird "rich international" vibe. I cannot imagine anything more different from Takoma Park. Can you move?

A 2 million pound place in Mayfair is vastly different to a 2 million pound place in other parts of London. Unfortunately, the price tag is for the area, not the quality of the house or flat.

I have plenty of friends who live in places like Richmond, Hampstead, East London, etc which have a far greater sense of community. These places tend to have historically evolved from outlying villages based around a common or park and you see that now in how they are laid out. There tends to be a big park or common and a high street with shops, cafes, etc. My friends do Park Run in their local park on the weekend which attracts people in their surrounding community. They do yoga classes in church halls etc. They meet people walking their dogs in the local park since that tends to be the only large green space in the area.

Regarding food, you need to go further afield. 25% of London's population was born overseas so there are vast diasporas and communities there. But, as I said, Mayfair caters to an entirely different set. You need to get out of there to find good food.

Social life can be based around the pub. Part of the reason is that people often live in small residences so they tend to get out to meet up. But going to the pub doesn't necessarily mean drinking heavily. Some have quiz nights, others have music. Often, if I go to London and catch up with friends at a pub, we might only have 1 or 2 drinks. On weekends, people often take their families to pubs for a meal etc.

I agree- Mayfair is the worst place to live. It's a money laundering haven. Richmond is far out but lovely, if you are stuck there for 2 more years. Id pull up stakes and move to Hampstead or Kew or even Wimbledon. no need to go to east London, southlondn is bad enough just dont live anywhere a Saudi or Russian oligarch would want live and you'll be fine.also there are still no actual British people in London, even[b] the 2nd gen immigrants have moved out to Surrey and Essex so you should be able to experience a very global set of new acquaintances and they arent all rude b/c well, they arent even all teh same culture! in your place I'd move to Kew garden area, its so cozy , very green and charming and I love the book shops and boutiques. I grew up staying with relatives in Putney but they've all moved to the country and so we get a car and stay in kew, can still be in central London quick and out to see family fast plus Gatwick is super close for mini breaks.

Don’t be absurd!

It can feel like that. Even people in London joke about it.

-- long time London visitor and former London resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately you chose where to live very poorly. Mayfair is centrally locally and looks lovely, but is incredibly expensive and so is largely the base for US hedge funds and very rich jetsetty international types (eg Middle Eastern oil money, etc). There is no sense of community and is rather soulless. It has a weird "rich international" vibe. I cannot imagine anything more different from Takoma Park. Can you move?

A 2 million pound place in Mayfair is vastly different to a 2 million pound place in other parts of London. Unfortunately, the price tag is for the area, not the quality of the house or flat.

I have plenty of friends who live in places like Richmond, Hampstead, East London, etc which have a far greater sense of community. These places tend to have historically evolved from outlying villages based around a common or park and you see that now in how they are laid out. There tends to be a big park or common and a high street with shops, cafes, etc. My friends do Park Run in their local park on the weekend which attracts people in their surrounding community. They do yoga classes in church halls etc. They meet people walking their dogs in the local park since that tends to be the only large green space in the area.

Regarding food, you need to go further afield. 25% of London's population was born overseas so there are vast diasporas and communities there. But, as I said, Mayfair caters to an entirely different set. You need to get out of there to find good food.

Social life can be based around the pub. Part of the reason is that people often live in small residences so they tend to get out to meet up. But going to the pub doesn't necessarily mean drinking heavily. Some have quiz nights, others have music. Often, if I go to London and catch up with friends at a pub, we might only have 1 or 2 drinks. On weekends, people often take their families to pubs for a meal etc.

I agree- Mayfair is the worst place to live. It's a money laundering haven. Richmond is far out but lovely, if you are stuck there for 2 more years. Id pull up stakes and move to Hampstead or Kew or even Wimbledon. no need to go to east London, southlondn is bad enough just dont live anywhere a Saudi or Russian oligarch would want live and you'll be fine.also there are still no actual British people in London, even[b] the 2nd gen immigrants have moved out to Surrey and Essex so you should be able to experience a very global set of new acquaintances and they arent all rude b/c well, they arent even all teh same culture! in your place I'd move to Kew garden area, its so cozy , very green and charming and I love the book shops and boutiques. I grew up staying with relatives in Putney but they've all moved to the country and so we get a car and stay in kew, can still be in central London quick and out to see family fast plus Gatwick is super close for mini breaks.

Don’t be absurd!

It can feel like that. Even people in London joke about it.

-- long time London visitor and former London resident.

Any Londoner will tell you that there are more visitors and students in London than actual Londoners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately you chose where to live very poorly. Mayfair is centrally locally and looks lovely, but is incredibly expensive and so is largely the base for US hedge funds and very rich jetsetty international types (eg Middle Eastern oil money, etc). There is no sense of community and is rather soulless. It has a weird "rich international" vibe. I cannot imagine anything more different from Takoma Park. Can you move?

A 2 million pound place in Mayfair is vastly different to a 2 million pound place in other parts of London. Unfortunately, the price tag is for the area, not the quality of the house or flat.

I have plenty of friends who live in places like Richmond, Hampstead, East London, etc which have a far greater sense of community. These places tend to have historically evolved from outlying villages based around a common or park and you see that now in how they are laid out. There tends to be a big park or common and a high street with shops, cafes, etc. My friends do Park Run in their local park on the weekend which attracts people in their surrounding community. They do yoga classes in church halls etc. They meet people walking their dogs in the local park since that tends to be the only large green space in the area.

Regarding food, you need to go further afield. 25% of London's population was born overseas so there are vast diasporas and communities there. But, as I said, Mayfair caters to an entirely different set. You need to get out of there to find good food.

Social life can be based around the pub. Part of the reason is that people often live in small residences so they tend to get out to meet up. But going to the pub doesn't necessarily mean drinking heavily. Some have quiz nights, others have music. Often, if I go to London and catch up with friends at a pub, we might only have 1 or 2 drinks. On weekends, people often take their families to pubs for a meal etc.

I agree- Mayfair is the worst place to live. It's a money laundering haven. Richmond is far out but lovely, if you are stuck there for 2 more years. Id pull up stakes and move to Hampstead or Kew or even Wimbledon. no need to go to east London, southlondn is bad enough just dont live anywhere a Saudi or Russian oligarch would want live and you'll be fine.also there are still no actual British people in London, even[b] the 2nd gen immigrants have moved out to Surrey and Essex so you should be able to experience a very global set of new acquaintances and they arent all rude b/c well, they arent even all teh same culture! in your place I'd move to Kew garden area, its so cozy , very green and charming and I love the book shops and boutiques. I grew up staying with relatives in Putney but they've all moved to the country and so we get a car and stay in kew, can still be in central London quick and out to see family fast plus Gatwick is super close for mini breaks.

Don’t be absurd!

It can feel like that. Even people in London joke about it.

-- long time London visitor and former London resident.

I mean, I’m a Londoner, all my family and friends still live there and I don’t feel like this. There have always been lots of immigrants and expats, as well as lots of people who moved there from other parts of the UK. That’s just what London is. My neighbourhood in Zone 2 is full of people like me who were born in London.
Mayfair.. well, in my lifetime that has never been a place where normal people live!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the life expectancy in the UK is way higher than the US. The results speak for themselves. Don’t confuse having a lot of healthcare with having good healthcare.

There are things that make a difference in life expectancy other than healthcare. Auto accidents, drug overdoses, suicide, etc. make up the difference. US survival rates for health conditions such as cancer are higher (things that actually measure the quality of health care).

[Anonymous]

I didn’t like all the cigarette smoking everywhere in London. Couldn’t walk 2 feet outside without smelling it. Twas gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the awful i have a concierge dr and London is horrible PP sounds like those suburban asshats from Below Deck. Weren’t they all Indian and from VA and total dicks?!

Ok. That’s the most racist thing I’ve seen on here for a while. Which is saying something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

1. either you have comparative data or you have no data.
2. your argument is fundamentally very dumb because it's like if you needed to travel 50 miles and had no car and i said here's a maserati and here's a 2010 kia sorrento; the maserati is $1k a month and the kia is free - and you said 'the kia sorrento didn't go as fast as the maserati'. I mean - duh.

1. There is lots of data. I just didn't bother to go searching, but since you don't seem to be able to operate the internet, here you go.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country

US
Breast. 88.6%
Stomach 29.1%
Lung 18.7%
Prostate 97.2%

UK
Breast 81%
Stomach 18.5%
Lung 9.6%
Prostate 83.2%

Which country has the best cancer survival rate?

The country with the highest cancer survival rate varies depending on the type of cancer, but those in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have the best odds of beating cancer, according to the CONCORD-3 report.

https://news.yale.edu/2018/05/01/disparities-found-lung-cancer-care-survival-us-versus-england

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-cancer-survival-rates-bottom-world-league-table-a9101916.html

2. In your analogy, the Kia is free, but you're going to die while waiting for one so you can drive to the hospital for treatment.


This article is paywalled, but it focuses on the fact that survival rates for cancer in the UK are 15 years behind other countries because of a lack of access to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Meanwhile, advanced immunotherapy treatments are becoming standard in the US.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/26/uk-cancer-survival-rates-lag-15-years-countries-chemo/

Patients in the uk will be the first in the world to access immunotherapy shot that treats cancer in 7 mins

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/29/patients-in-england-will-be-first-to-access-seven-minute-cancer-jab

How many of them will? How many months will they have to wait? Sorry if you all are thrown off by actual data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the awful i have a concierge dr and London is horrible PP sounds like those suburban asshats from Below Deck. Weren’t they all Indian and from VA and total dicks?!

I’m that poster and I have no idea what “Below Deck” is. It’s possible I’m a total dick (unlike the person bragging about their London Dr. with the cappucino machine that I was responding to?), but you’re a raging racist and I’m not, so there is that.