« Previous | Main | Next »

Rudy's Fuzzy Healthcare Math

Share

October 29, 2007 3:36 PM

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: To hear Rudy Giuliani describe it in his new radio ad, the British medical system is a scary place.

"My chance of surviving prostate cancer -- and thank God I was cured of it -- in the United States: 82 percent," Giuliani says in a new radio spot airing in New Hampshire. "My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine."

But the data Giuliani cites comes from a single study published eight years ago by a not-for-profit group, and is contradicted by official data from the British government.

According to the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics, for men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1999 and 2003, the "five-year survival rate" -- a common measurement in cancer statistics -- was 74.4 percent.

The statistics show that the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer victims in the UK has been steadily rising to approach the survival rate Giuliani cited for the United States.

The 74.4 percent survival rate "was 3.6 percentage points higher than the rate of 70.8 per cent for men diagnosed during 1998-2001," according to a British government report published in August.

In releasing the ad, the Giuliani campaign cited statistics published in an article in the Summer 2007 issue of City Journal, an urban-policy magazine that Giuliani has pronounced himself a fan of. The article, "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care," was written by David Gratzer, a physician who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and is a healthcare adviser to the Giuliani campaign.

"And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out," Gratzer writes. "The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England -- a striking variation."

The article did not name a source for those statistics. Through a spokeswoman, Gratzer said he was relying on data compiled for a 2000 study by the Commonwealth Fund, a not-for-profit foundation that supports health research.

Maria Comella, a Giuliani campaign spokesman, said the former New York City mayor is an avid reader of City Journal and found the passage in the article himself. He cited the statistics at a campaign stop, and the campaign used a recording from that appearance in the radio advertisement.

The campaign did not attempt to independently verify the statistics, Comella said.

"The citation is an article in a highly respected intellectual journal written by an expert at a highly respected think tank which the mayor read because he is an intellectually engaged human being," she said.

Don McCanne, a senior health policy fellow at Physicians for a National Health Program, conceded that the five-year survival rate for cancer diagnoses is higher in the United States than in many countries that have single-payer systems, though the disparity is not as great as Giuliani claims in his ad.

But he said that any such comparison is flawed, since it fails to take into account the additional investment in cancer education and screening in the United States. Much of the gap would be closed if other countries invested similar sums in catching cancer early.

If all Americans had access to preventive care, screenings, and treatment -- through a single-payer system or another universal healthcare plan -- the five-year survival rate would almost certainly be increased, since cancers would be caught sooner.

"It's not a result of the healthcare-financing issue. That's not what this is about at all," McCanne said. "Under a universal system, we would increase access to preventive screening."

October 29, 2007 in Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (47)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Far be it from this Thompson supporter to come to Giuliani's defense but, socialized medicine is scary. Long lines, poor health care, and slow drug development is scary. Unfortunately, the liberals long for that nonsense.

Posted by: jade02008 | Oct 29, 2007 4:34:52 PM

What democrats want is for every man, woman, and child in the US to have access to ALL the health care they need. There are currently somewhere around 44 MILLION Americans that have no health insurance. As a result, they often get care either at an emergency room, or when they can afford to pay for it out of their own pocket. When the uninsured go to the emergency room, you and I pay, either through higher costs for care, through taxes, ro through higher insurance premiums.

Posted by: Bob Robinson | Oct 29, 2007 4:57:51 PM

Rudy is chuckling in that radio ad...guess the joke is on him.

Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | Oct 29, 2007 5:10:44 PM

Guiliani says he might not have survived "socialized medicine" in England. This shows his true colors. What about the poor kids who won't ever see a hospital? They will die before they get there. It is totally time for a change and Guiliani isn't part of it.

Posted by: Ed | Oct 29, 2007 5:22:59 PM

There's the bug-a-boo words again - socialized medicine. That really means government medicine, of course, and we already have that - Medicare. I participate for a premium of about $100 a month. Before my wife passed away her monthly premium for a not as good private plan was $900 - how come? I've also had an experience with the National Health Service in England a month or so ago. I went to the emergency room, then was admitted the next day, had minor surgery under anesthesia, kept overnight to make sure I was OK and then dismissed, all without a word about money. When I got home there was a bill for $3,000 which includes the emergency room, the hospital and all the doctors, probably 25% of the cost had it been with health care system. Besides that, the doctor always showed up on time and the tea lady comes around three times a day - would you like some tea, love? I'll trade our system for theirs any day.

Posted by: Sinclair | Oct 29, 2007 5:28:28 PM

The Canadian healthcare system is better than the US system by FAR. Long lines, etc. are pure mythology. How do I know this? I lived in Canada for 18 years. Since moving back to the US, I've learned that it's just easier to die than to expose myself to the corrupt US healthcare system in ANY way.

Posted by: Lana | Oct 29, 2007 5:34:07 PM

Guliani may have one more bullet left for his already damaged foot but he will never make it to the White House. They all play little games with the numbers and assume we're too slow to figure it out - heck, he probably couldn't figure it out if he didn't have staff telling him what it all means. The Republicans, as always, are only looking out for their rich cronies - to heck with the middle-income, hard working people. They don't need health care - just let them keep paying the bulk of our taxes. They can't make huge donations to our campaigns, so screw them.

Posted by: OneWhoCares | Oct 29, 2007 5:39:46 PM

Yawn.

Posted by: Tony Hart | Oct 29, 2007 5:43:02 PM

The English have socialized medicine because their system actually employs doctors. The French just have government insurance with private doctors. Either one will cover everyone. Our system just makes the insurance companies rich and the taxpayers pay to insure their profits by taking the most costly group out of the private pool (the elderly thru Medicare) and we pay more per person for medical care than either of these countries. How long must the American taxpayer subsidize private profits at an exorbitant rate? Do you want socialism for the rich insurance companies or do you want sick people made well? Do you want administrators denying the sick coverage or do you want doctors to be paid for doing what is necessary to heal patients? Moan about socialism and socialized all you want - the guys in the corner offices in the tall towers are laughing all the way to the bank with your money, your employers money, and the governments money. Be a fool with your hard-earned cash! They'll gladly watch you die while denying you coverage.

As for Guiliani, he's already plundered so much money out of his previous positions he doesn't care what happens to you. He's covered with cash. He doesn't need insurance - he just needs to collect large cash donations for stopping you from getting insurance!

Posted by: Terrier | Oct 29, 2007 5:46:10 PM

Look, debating the definition, or even the merits, of "socialized medicine" is kinda pointless. The US will never get it; we'll be lucky to get guaranteed insurance for poor children. What's interesting abut this story is how freely Giuliani lies -- except, of course, that it isn't called "lying" when you cite a fraudulent source. it's called "relying on faulty intelligence."

Posted by: FatherAnonymous | Oct 29, 2007 5:54:48 PM

I am NO far right Bush lover and figured I'd throw that in before some of you guys attack me. Perhaps Lana above lived in an area that was doable on the wait time, but they do have issues in Canada with wait times. They also have a shortage of doctors and equipment. It's about quality of care going down hill and there is some truth to the fact that if you get cancer or something huge your odds more slim on survival than with our quality of care. Do not get me wrong - we need a fix. I'd prefer something not socialized.

Posted by: Sandra | Oct 29, 2007 6:02:50 PM

I know, I love the fact that we don't have long lines in America. Why, just a few months ago I wanted to schedule a doctor's appointment. A couple months' wait. I wanted a dentist's appointment. I scheduled it in December and the appointment was in April. Thank God for the quick service when you need something here.

Posted by: VJ | Oct 29, 2007 6:30:19 PM

Of course Rudy would have survived in England. The RICH always have access to all the heathcare they need.

And the richer you are in America the more likely your illnesses will be found early.

Posted by: lilybart | Oct 29, 2007 6:46:33 PM

Why do Republicans all say they think "Socialized Medicine" is bad? They are simply not using their brains. Somebody told them it's bad so they just repeat it. Part of being a "conservative" or "right winger" is being stubborn. They demonize it with that ridiculous name and then go crazy saying any BS about it. We are the ONLY country without a national health service. Everywhere else, it's wonderful. I've spent significant time in UK, France, Italy and I can tell you from personal experience, not just "Sicko," that we're Hosed in the USA when it comes to medical care, and they have it sweet over there. Don't let Republican ignoramusses and cowards fool you with their overheated ignorant noise.
Peas
Out

Posted by: Zio Kai | Oct 29, 2007 7:20:59 PM

Ok... so Rudy cares about America, that is why he is worried about healthcare? Well... its funny cause this guy sure wasnt too worried about the health of his own first responders and police when he told them the air was safe to breath and told the FEMA workers not to hand out Breathing appartus to the first responders because it would make NEW YORK look like it was unsafe!!!!

The EPA, FEMA and several other agencies warned him that the air was NOT SAFE and yet he insisted that it was and told the firefighters and Rescues workers and First Responders that it was!!!

This guy is a crook and a liar and doesnt care about any of us!!! This man should be punished for lying to the American people! Not to mention for trying to push the North American Union on us!!!

Posted by: Ezra Mondeva | Oct 29, 2007 7:25:38 PM

It's very clear that a pattern has emerged in which it is patently obvious that Rudy Giuliani is a serial exaggerator on such a grand scale as to make Al Gore look like a Boy Scout.

Posted by: OxyCon | Oct 29, 2007 7:59:12 PM

Maybe Rudy should spend less time bashing Hillary and more time checking his facts!

Posted by: Rudy Supporter - NOT | Oct 29, 2007 8:03:08 PM

As a Brit I take great exception to Giulianis comments about "socialised medicine". I am sure he got great treatment in America because he has the money to pay for it. In the UK the ability to pay is not an issue. America has the best health care in the world only if you can afford it.
I suggest he sorts out the problems in his own country before attackick other countries. I know in which country I would rather be ill in.

Posted by: Scottish Girl | Oct 29, 2007 8:03:53 PM

I am sick and tired of people telling us that social health care is scary. I was living in Germany for most of my life, and received the best medical treatment of my life, both on private and government insurances. I have juvenile diabetes and visited doctors and hospitals on a regular basis, so I know what I am talking about. Now living in the U.S., I experience the same waiting lines as in Germany, and the medical treatment is no different to what I received in Germany. It's clear to me what Republicans are trying to do (again): Scare people and don't tell the truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 29, 2007 8:40:18 PM

Too bad Mr. Guiliani didn't mention that here, if you don't have any medical insurance, your survival rate is closer to 0%.

Posted by: Ken in Vegas | Oct 29, 2007 9:24:07 PM

Post a comment