Comments on: Giuliani’s statistics on prostate cancer draw scrutiny

By: Taliban.US | Cheney dead in a heartbeat with average US healthcare, nurses say

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:08:07 +0000

[…] health care argument contrasts with that of Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani who said earlier this fall he would probably would not have survived his fight with prostate cancer if he had been in Britain, […]

By: Tom Newman

Tom Newman — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:30:44 +0000

Maybe you liberals should think before you drink the koolaid. The number is verified at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml

and one of the important statements in the piece is…
“Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.”

First this article covers all Cancers not just Prostate Cancer, but it does mention prostate cancer in the article.

Second, you assume Americans won’t go to the doctor or the hospital because they don’t have coverage. When they are so sick that they are about to die, they will have to go to the hospital regardless of coverage. Let’s assume that they are 3 days from death. They go to the hospital and they are diagnosed with cancer. They die 3 days later. They don’t live the 5 years and so they would lower the 4 year survival rate of the US.

Third the article states that the problem with the government control is “Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.” The problem is not paying for the treatment it is waiting in line to get the treatment.

Finally, if anyone thinks that the government can do anything better than the private sector, could you go please go get my license plates, deal with the IRS and the Social Security Administration, or deal with my County Assessor? Do you really want the people who run these departments to tell your doctor what he can and can’t do with your health care?

By: Lara

Lara — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:41:49 +0000

The point Kurt makes about the survival rates only being applicable to those with coverage is true and obvious. It is offensive that politicians use stats that are not comparable, hoping that most people don’t really think about it.

More importantly, the claim is being made that survival rates differ BECAUSE of who owns the system. That connection is certainly dubious.

By: GoogleItLazyGuy

GoogleItLazyGuy — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:20:45 +0000

Not including black projects(unlisted, estimated at an extra 20-50%) and the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq (roughly $400 billion US) the DoD budget for 2006 was $499.4 billion US. When you add the interest accrued from all of this deficit spending it is very close to a trillion dollars US (that’s $1,000,000,000,000). Now compare that with the projected costs of Universal Health insurance (I’ll let you find that, trust me it’s substantially less) and it is a mere drop in the bucket even when you account for cost overruns.

By: Scitech

Scitech — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:39:46 +0000

Kurt,
The military question is not relevant; defense of the country IS the job of the government. The question is whether it’s constitutional right of the US government to force money from US citizens to give to others to pay for health care? Do the Democrats with these great plans (and you?) put your money where your mouth is and contribute to this cause now, since it’s so great? I already give thousands every year supporting destitute, homeless, etc. and I’m middle class.

By: pb

pb — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:26:59 +0000

How much of the GDP do you think military spending consumes? Or are you just talking out of your ass like most liberals. If people want health insurance, they should get better jobs. Get a job, show up on time every day, apply for promotions - health coverage will follow.

By: Kurt Larson

Kurt Larson — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:13:25 +0000

The survival rates are referring to those WHO GET TREATMENT. How many people in the US simply die of prostate cancer without any attempt being made to cure them? Compare that to the UK?

By: P E Olson

P E Olson — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:27:35 +0000

The ugly truth about the health care system in the US is the large number of people who are not insured. My recollection is that there are over 45 million Americans with no health care insurance.

My questions are:
1) What is the prostrate cancer survival rate for those uninsured people?
2) What is the probability that they will get any diagnosis cancer spreads beyond the prostate?
3) What is the economic impact of having prostrate cancer and no insurance? Who bears the cost of this?
4) Since many insured in the US have only catastrophic health insurance (large deductibles and co-pay) will there be a tendency to postpone visits to health care providers?

As a matter of national policy, there should be assured health care coverage for all with a basic level of coverage - as part of our national health plan - paid by all of us. This would benefit all people. Additional coverage for people with the means would still be available to enhance health care insurance coverage beyond the basics.

If we cannot afford this as a nation, then perhaps we also should not afford a military system that consumes too much of the GDP.