wifezilla Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 "My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent," Giuliani said in a radio ad. "My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine." http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/64296...-HUNT09.article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I'll give you a chance to back that up with more than a single MSM article before I reduce it rubble and wipe my ass with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wifezilla Posted November 9, 2007 Author Share Posted November 9, 2007 "The team, writing in The Lancet Oncology, found that Britain's survival rates for the most common cancers - colorectal, lung, breast and prostate - were substantially behind those in Western Europe. In England, the proportion of women with breast cancer who were alive five years after diagnosis was 77.8pc. Scotland (77.3pc) and Ireland (76.2pc) had a lower rate. Rates for lung cancer in England were poor, with only 8.4pc of patients surviving - half the rate for Iceland (16.8pc). Only Scotland (8.2pc) and Malta (4.6pc) did worse." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ncancer121.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Just to let everyone know, I'm neutral in this since I can't vote. (Oh thank you mighty mental health laws, fuckers!) Anyway, here's some info that I found: The Office for National Statistics in Britain says the five-year survival rate from prostate cancer there is 74.4 percent.from the following site: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin Here is another site listing the statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=861 Hope this info is helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Yeah! All that exercise standing in line is good for you! a.m. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wifezilla Posted November 9, 2007 Author Share Posted November 9, 2007 "Let me be very clear about why the Giuliani campaign is correct: the percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths. According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 28 per 100,000 died of it. This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; and, consequently, that just 43 percent survived. Economist John Goodman, in Lives at Risk, arrives at precisely the same conclusion: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Rates for lung cancer in England were poor, with only 8.4pc of patients surviving - half the rate for Iceland (16.8pc). Only Scotland (8.2pc) and Malta (4.6pc) did worse." [link=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml" target="_blank]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ncancer121.xml[/link] Giulani's "statistics" have been debunked elsewhere, so I'll address the complaint in the cited article about waiting times for radiotherapy. Here's a clue from someone who's had the opportunity to watch someone waste away as their body and brain were literally eaten away by metastatic lung cancer: once it gets settled in and radiotherapy is your only hope, you're pretty goddanmed fucked. Aside from the biological fact that population genetics and cultural factors such as smoking play a significant role in the development of cancer, including lung cancer, there has been a premium placed on early detection in the US and Canada and that increases the population-wide likelihood of survival considerably more than any particular lying piece of crap elected to high office next year and his or her or its political cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Giuliani's campaign strategy: When you can't run against the Democrats, run against the British NHS! heh. a.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wifezilla Posted November 9, 2007 Author Share Posted November 9, 2007 Tomato ToMAAAAto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Yeah! All that exercise standing in line is good for you! a.m. LOL When was the last time you didn't have to wait for health care? "Emergency appointment" means "this week" otherwise it can take a month to get in to see someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 When was the last time you didn't have to wait for health care? "Emergency appointment" means "this week" otherwise it can take a month to get in to see someone. Last time I bothered calling for an exam it was a 6-week wait for checking a potential concussion including a scalp wound of unknown depth. In the ER, we're talking about 4 hours on a quiet evening for a mild concussion or for anaphylaxis mild enough that the patient is still breathing after 50 mg diphenhydramine, 8 hours for a shattered ankle. On a busier day like the day after Christmas, 12 hours for a snapped femur and the patient was sent home and told to call the primary care doctor for appointment. The waiting times for primary-care doctors and ERs is so short I've seen a person with a chainsaw wound hobble in to a Emergent Care facility instead, and she had to drive past the local hospital to get there. And as a consequence, the people in an ER waiting room may be so sick - and contagious - that you do NOT take a person with a compromised immune system there. By the way, all of that was *with* health insurance coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usernametaken Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 the American and European standards for the diagnosis of prostate cancer are drastically different. i should search for some articles, but that is what i remember from a conversation with a cancer researcher. distinguishing between an inflammed prostate and cancer is a line that American doctors stay on the "we will go ahead and treat you, even though you might not actually have cancer" side of. So if a higher percentage of European prostate patients actually have cancer, statistically more are going to die of the more lethal disease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 If healthcare was much worse wouldn't the life expectancy be lower? Life expectancy is about the same, a little higher in the UK and infant mortality is higher in the us. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.