jbairdjr on 13/11/2007 at 10:55
Quote Posted by SD
Rudolph Giuliani...under Great Britain's "socialised healthcare" system, he'd have only had a 44% chance of surviving his prostate cancer, while under America's (incidentally, 150% more expensive, and non-universal) private health insurance system, it was as high as 82%.
The survival rate in Britain is actually 74%...
...but how do people - and, for that matter, such high profile people as the potential next POTUS - get away with uttering such blatant lies?
You need to do a little more research my friend, (
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=279237711504195) you know?
D'Juhn Keep on 13/11/2007 at 11:48
His most recent book is "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
ha ha ha what CAN'T those invisible market forces do?
Matthew on 13/11/2007 at 11:58
'He advises the Giuliani campaign.'
Ah.
Pyrian on 13/11/2007 at 20:04
An IBD editorial has absolutely zero credibility. That page is one of the worst partisan bullshit-rags I've ever encountered - and I've read some pretty bad ones.
Try, instead, the non-partisan FactCheck article:
(
http://www.factcheck.org/bogus_cancer_stats_again.html) http://www.factcheck.org/bogus_cancer_stats_again.html
SD on 13/11/2007 at 21:06
Sites like FactCheck make me love the Internet :D
Anyway, truth told, even if prostate cancer survival rates
were much higher in the USA than the UK, that's not an argument in favour of privately-provided healthcare, it's an argument in favour of more cancer screening.
As Ezra Klein (no relation) (
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12683) pointed out earlier this year, UK per capita health spending is about 40% of that in the US without being noticeably inferior.
In fact, the only possible explanations for Rudy Giuliani's strident opposition to socialised healthcare in the USA are that he's in the pockets of the health industry, or he's stupid. And he ain't stupid. I only wish the same could be said for his supporters.
jbairdjr on 14/11/2007 at 12:47
Quote Posted by Pyrian
An IBD editorial has absolutely zero credibility.
Why is that?
Pyrian on 14/11/2007 at 20:09
Quote Posted by Pyrian
An IBD editorial has absolutely zero credibility.
Quote Posted by jbairdjr
Why is that?
Because:
Quote Posted by Pyrian
That page is one of the worst partisan bullshit-rags I've ever encountered - and I've read some pretty bad ones.
They've got a few decent contributors on the purely business side, but by-and-large, the IBD editorial page is filled with ludicrous garbage, bald-faced lies, and a partisan slant of cliff-like proportions.
Mingan on 14/11/2007 at 21:11
Let's face it: there's no such thing as a non-partisan newspaper. There are some though that try a bit harder not to show it.
Pyrian on 14/11/2007 at 21:16
Quote Posted by heretic1dg
..and the Guardian is a shining beacon of neutrality?
I repeat my recommendation of the FactCheck article.
