Lies, damn lies and statistics...
So, Mr Guliani, you say the survival rate from prostate cancer in "capitalist medicine" over here is 82% and that in the UK under "socialised medicine" is only 44%? You, Sir, are a lying scoundrel, seeking only to smear your potential opponents intent to expand healthcare in the USA. If you become the nominee for your party I sincerely hope this blatant lie comes back to bite you firmly in the seat of the pants.
The UK office of national statistics reports a current 5-year survival rate of 74.4%, trending upwards.
Your 44% figure came from an article published by an adviser to your campaign who has admitted to the NYT that the statistic is "seven years old and crude."
The source of that statistic was a study by the Commonwealth Fund, which has since issued a statement accusing your campaign adviser of misusing their research.
That same institute issued a report this year ranking on a league table the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand. the UK and the USA. No system in the league was rated perfect but the UK ranked highest whilst the USA ranked lowest.
Given the difference in strategies between docs in the two countries when treating that particular disease, US health officials are questioning whether its reasonable to even compare the two percentages, given that mortality from this disease is roughly 25 men per 100,000 per year in both countries. However, lets assume the two numbers are directly comparable - Everyone in the UK has health-care coverage whilst 15.9% of folks in the US have no coverage at all according to 2006 census bureau data. Assuming that those 15.9% never get a diagnosis of or treatment for prostate cancer but the males in that group suffer it at the same rate as everyone who has insurance that knocks your POPULATION-WIDE survival rate down to about 69%. Puts the UK's 74% in a somewhat different light if you consider the entire male population of both nations.
Now I understand that, to use a phrase infamous in the UK, that a politician can be expected to be "somewhat economical with the truth" but barefaced, verifiable falsehood is a different matter entirely. I repeat, Sir, you are a liar.
The UK office of national statistics reports a current 5-year survival rate of 74.4%, trending upwards.
Your 44% figure came from an article published by an adviser to your campaign who has admitted to the NYT that the statistic is "seven years old and crude."
The source of that statistic was a study by the Commonwealth Fund, which has since issued a statement accusing your campaign adviser of misusing their research.
That same institute issued a report this year ranking on a league table the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand. the UK and the USA. No system in the league was rated perfect but the UK ranked highest whilst the USA ranked lowest.
Given the difference in strategies between docs in the two countries when treating that particular disease, US health officials are questioning whether its reasonable to even compare the two percentages, given that mortality from this disease is roughly 25 men per 100,000 per year in both countries. However, lets assume the two numbers are directly comparable - Everyone in the UK has health-care coverage whilst 15.9% of folks in the US have no coverage at all according to 2006 census bureau data. Assuming that those 15.9% never get a diagnosis of or treatment for prostate cancer but the males in that group suffer it at the same rate as everyone who has insurance that knocks your POPULATION-WIDE survival rate down to about 69%. Puts the UK's 74% in a somewhat different light if you consider the entire male population of both nations.
Now I understand that, to use a phrase infamous in the UK, that a politician can be expected to be "somewhat economical with the truth" but barefaced, verifiable falsehood is a different matter entirely. I repeat, Sir, you are a liar.