Damned Limeys.
n the radio ad, Giuliani, who has suffered prostate cancer, said the U.S. survival rate for the disease was 82 percent, but the survival rate in Britain was just 44 percent "under socialised medicine."
Britain's Health Secretary Alan Johnson said Giuliani's figures were wrong and the survival rate under Britain's National Health Service was in fact much higher.
"The British NHS should not become a political football in American presidential politics," Johnson told The Times newspaper.
"Our rate of prostate cancer survival is actually much higher than has been claimed. The latest data show a survival rate of over 70 percent and rising."
From Cancerpage.com
Bad news there Johnson, it already has. You can thank Sicko for that.
(According to The Telegraph figures for England say they're actually 52.7% for all cancers in women and 44.8% in men. Didn't see any comment from Alan Johnson in that article!)
Edit: Where the hell are Forbes getting this from?! Today, rates are higher - 99 percent in the U.S. and an estimated 74 percent in the U.K.
And if he did...
The former New York mayor got his numbers from an article in the City Journal, a quarterly magazine published by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank.
Then why is the Telegraph using the same data?
Bad AP.
8 comments:
I have to say, I get really defensive whenever Americans criticize the NHS. I think the logic is that we know the NHS isn't ideal. We get stressed about it. On the other hand, I've never met a Brit who didn't like the idea of the NHS, so every time I hear a Brit say "bloody NHS", I hear them saying "I want to improve our ideologically good, but currently underfunded and flawed system". Every time I hear an American say "bloody NHS" I hear them saying "screw you and your socialised medicine. We think you'd be better off if you ditched it and left your poor to die on the streets."
I don't think I'm being rational or reasonable, but that's what the crazy emotional brain says, and that's why I can feel my hackles go up when the subject is raised.
In general, I think Brits and Americans genuinely disagree on the fundemental purpose of a health care system, which makes conversation really hard.
Sally
I've thought of something else!
I mean to say this whenever the debate comes up and then forget. I don't think that comparing the American private system with the NHS is actually a reasonable comparison. We do actually have private hospitals and private health insurance in the UK as well. I've been treated privately, and my Mum was treated through Dad's work medical insurance all the way through her cancer.
I think maybe a better comparison would be between survival rates for Americans without health insurance with cancer, and Brits treated on the NHS. Or, I guess, Brits and Americans treated privately. I suspect if you are able to pay a lot of money, then you will get slightly more lavish treatment in the US and UK alike. For me, however, my love of the NHS comes down to the fact that I like knowing that I won't be left to die if I don't have that cash.
It is a bit of a case of apples and oranges. I mean, I'm not sure I appreciate Giuliani using the NHS prostate cancer statistics as a basis for shooting down Clinton's healthcare plan (that's what this is about really.)
But at the same time, they are valid.
And regardless of the amount of money you have, all doctors still have the sacred Oath. So, that's something.
The fact is though, the vast majority of Americans are covered by some kind of health insurance. Around 16% aren't, which is worrying, and what people like Senator Clinton and former governor John Kitzhaber are trying to fix.
Is it only 16%? I always got the impression it was more, mostly from hearing Americans stressing about not being able to afford to go to the doctor about their flu, or talking about having problems paying their rent after their kid was born prematurely etc. Maybe I just know a very unlucky corner of American society.
Is most insurance relatively comprehensive? I mean, I've always assumed that if Jez and I lived in the US we'd be screwed, as he's had pneumonia multiple times, winds up in A&E about 6 times a year on average, and needs three different kinds of inhalers constantly. Would that be covered by most normal insurance?
As far as the first comment, that's why I didn't post it on my El Jay. LOL. Too many opportunities for scariness.
It's 50 million out of 300 (approximately.) I just tallied it up. The real problem is the cost of healthcare, which when you take into consideration how much British citizens spend on NI and other taxes, it kind of balances out. We pay less in taxes, but don't have socialized healthcare. So the cost goes over to paying for an HMO.
The big difference between private healthcare in the US and the UK is just cost at point of access.
I'm not sure, the asthma thing is a big concern for me. I know it will raise my premiums (while Philip's will be quite low.)
Most couples I know in the US go with the employer that has the cheapest coverage and then add their partner on to their policy. I think that's the main work around.
Don't get me wrong, our healthcare system isn't great.
I'm actually all for healthcare as a human right, but I do think it could be better implemented than the NHS. I know others have had great experiences with them. But I'm on the losing end of the postcode lottery.
Yup. Brits can't talk to Americans about the NHS without the crazy. It's worse than gun control debates.
I've come to the conclusion maybe there is just something in the water in some country or other, which makes us different.
*nods*
I've mostly been lucky with doctors and with treatment. The doctor J and I go to has been really good with him.
I've only ever had one lousy doctor which was at university. He believed all female students were either depressed or pregnant, and you pretty much had to disprove that diagnosis before he'd listen to you about anything else. I blame that on him seeing a lot of 18 yr old girls tho.
Post a Comment