U.K. Cancer Death Rate Is 38% Higher Than In U.S.
by Dick MorrisAs the Congress prepared to vote to let us enter the world of waits for doctors, waits for specialists, waits for testing and waits for surgery, radiation and chemo, we should pause to consider the relative records of the private medical care system in the United States with the socialized system in the U.K.
In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only 0.18%. The UK cancer death rate was 38% higher than in the United States.
The Guardian, the UK’s left wing daily, estimated that “up to 10,000 people” are dying each year of cancer “because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government’s director of cancer services.” While many people die because of late detection due to their own negligence, there is no reason to believe this self-neglect is more common in the UK than in the US.
In Canada, the cancer death rate is 16% higher than in the United States.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
236 Comments
But Obama says we spend more but do not get better results.
Certainly the heath care system itself is not the only variable involved?
This article leaves me with more questions than answers.
This surprises anyone? The USA has the best health care system in the world. One would not know that if they listened to the news as of late. All you hear is horror fringe stories. My father has coronary artery disease and has sustained two MI's (heart attacks). My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. They both are under Anthem BCBS. They have never, ever been stiffed or lampooned by their insurance company. I wonder why we don't hear these stores?
of course the system is not the ONLY variable…it is however the MAJOR variable and the primary reason why cancer death rate is lower in the US.
And tell me why again the United States needs socialized health care? It seems to work SO well in the U.K. and Canada.
And Obama would be a liar. Both about that and everything else that comes out of his mouth.
Well, to heck with that! I won't be satisfied until OUR cancer death rate is higher than their's! GO OBAMACARE!
Canada also has a higher death rate from cancer. The only difference between UK, Canada and USA, is government run system, with RATIONED health care. Delaying diagnosis, treatment makes the difference! Shortage of physicians, shortage of diagnostic equipment and you can't even PAY if you want too.
Member of Canadian Parliament, proponent of their government run system was diagnosed with breast cancer. Where did she go for treatment? CALIFORNIA! She paid out of pocket, too!
Socialist health care is only as strong as the weakes component.
My mother in-law has no insurance and has just finished her second round of cancer treatment even though she has no financial ability to pay for it. The fact is there are programs to help the uninsured poor if they are willing to look! The only out of pocket she had to pay was for the doctors office visits which was very minimal.
remember these ARE eugenicists…
Many of them are openly contemptuous of their fellow citizens. 'Useless eaters' is the term they use. Why would anyone think Gaia worshippers are concerned with health care for central Wisconsin? Or Western Georgia?
They don't, plain and simple. They will ration because they WANT to have less people with shorter life spans, or at least not 'reward' meat eaters with expensive late life care.
That's the plain and simple truth…
There's TOO many idiots in charge here!
I still can't believe OUR GOVERNMENT is telling women NOT to do self exams… Incredible.
Ther has to be a document somewhere by NObama or Pelosi where they identify an acceptable loss thresshold, and they use this to justify the increase in deaths we will get in the new Health Care plan.
There are a lot of things about our health care system that we can correct without going to socialized medicine. why don't we take one issue at a time and work on things logically.
This is old news. Years ago I met an orthopaedic surgeon from the U.K. He had earnings less over there than his physical therapist earns in the states. His pay had been roughly equal to what we pay school teachers in America.
Make that a "dithering liar".
Take a look at their death rates for H1N1 vs. those of the US. You will be appalled. Canada's look pretty bad too.
only depressed suicidal americans are lined up for free gov healthcare. take care of the graft crud and coruption and things will work their way out.
logically speaking obdumbo would be job hunting and not potus. he told the world what his intentions were and the ghetto dwellers elected him over the buzz word free. don't think there is logic to be found.
I think this is where the phrase "you get what you pay for" comes in
Who is John Galt?
Next we'll find out that global warming is a hoax.
I am John Galt!
My bumper sticker! http://www.RightWingInc.com
Canada's heath care system is abysmal. Born and raised there with all my family still living there (I escaped to the US years ago) I know from personal experience how MUCH BETTER CARE IS IN THE USA.
Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or not being truthful.
I can't wait until walking into my doctor's office is just like walking into the D.M.V. Same sort of crowd will be in line in front of me if you know what I mean.
http://www.RightWingInc.com
Anti-Obama Bumper Stickers
THIS WILL BE IGNORED BY ALL THOSE RADICAL LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC WACKOS THAT THINK JUST BECAUSE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HAD SOCIALIZED MEDICINE…. WE SHOULD, ALSO. STUPID.
But, Dick! You’re using facts with liberals, a pointless exercise. They love their Barry and want their “free” stuff. Keep plugging away, maybe, just maybe you can get through, …doubtful.
And why are we in such a hurry to emulate the Europeans as many dems want to? It seems like we do a lot of things better
[...] From: BigGovernment.com [...]
what? too soon?
You folks realize that most of the people who get/die from cancer in the US are over 65 which means that they are covered by Medicare, right? So unless you isolate rates for under 65, you are not using clean statistical analysis, just cherry picking numbers to suit your opinion. But I wouldn't really expect many here to actually understand statistics.
Where are those polls that say that the medical systems in other countries are better than ours. With all the waiting lists and poor treatment found similar countries (UK, Canada, France) the system in the United States is the best. All that the health care bill does is give the Dems and big gov groups more power. It is all about power stemming from corruption that is already there.
I am watching http://www.americanparchment.com who is doing the “31 Corrupt Politicians in 31 Day” Program. I guess it’s a preview of a larger program they will be doing before the 2010 election. Today they are starting with our friend Rep. Barney Frank. Wow is this man dirty, and yet he always blames others and gets away with it.
Where are those polls that say that the medical systems in other countries are better than ours. With all the waiting lists and poor treatment found similar countries (UK, Canada, France) the system in the United States is the best. All that the health care bill does is give the Dems and big gov groups more power. It is all about power stemming from corruption that is already there.
I am watching http://www.americanparchment.com who is doing the “31 Corrupt Politicians in 31 Day” Program. I guess it’s a preview of a larger program they will be doing before the 2010 election. Today they are starting with our friend Rep. Barney Frank. Wow is this man dirty, and yet he always blames others and gets away with it.
Where are those polls that say that the medical systems in other countries are better than ours. With all the waiting lists and poor treatment found similar countries (UK, Canada, France) the system in the United States is the best. All that the health care bill does is give the Dems and big gov groups more power. It is all about power stemming from corruption that is already there.
I am watching http://www.americanparchment.com who is doing the “31 Corrupt Politicians in 31 Day” Program. I guess it’s a preview of a larger program they will be doing before the 2010 election. Today they are starting with our friend Rep. Barney Frank. Wow is this man dirty, and yet he always blames others and gets away with it.
How does .25%-.18%=.07% become 38%?
What happened to all the polls that told about the medical systems of foreign countries being better? When the US is compared to similar countries (UK, Canada, and France) our system has less waiting times, more surgical success rates, less infection, less cancer, etc. The only thing the health care bill does is give power to the Dems and big gov groups. This power stems from corruption of these groups.
I am watching http://www.americanparchment.com who is doing the “31 Corrupt Politicians in 31 Day” Program. I guess it’s a preview of a larger program they will be doing before the 2010 election. Today they are starting with our friend Rep. Barney Frank. Wow is this man dirty, and yet he always blames others and gets away with it.
I agree! Lets also put pictures of people missing their throats and dead babies on cigarette packs here as well….. that clearly helps people not smoke and reduces the cancer rate in the UK…. Oooooh better idea, how about a picture of Rosie O'Donnell on condoms so to reduce the risk of STD's.
If Canadian health care is so bad why is life expectancy in Canada three years longer than in the US? (Check CIA statistics on line) In Britain the article claims 10 000 diagnoses were delayed, but in the US where 120million people don’t have health care are you saying none of those people have delays?
Ok, I'll type this s-l-o-w-l-y for your benefit. Their system results in MORE DEAD BODIES than our (admittedly imperfect) system does. This is b-a-d (at least in many people's opinion).
Shall I repeat this? Why not just keep reading it over and over until you get it? MORE DEAD BODIES.
PS The comment above about the Canadian MP coming to California for her own treatment when she developed breast cancer is absolutely true. I have treated patients from Canada and Britaan (and many other countries) but can't recall a single US patient going to another country to get a treatment that was available here.
Dudes, you get what you pay for…
There’s a reason our hospital bills are so high on this side of the pond. We better get something for it!
Watch this, we'll have fun with statistics: In the UK 99.75% people don't die of cancer, while in the US its 99.82% Therefore, the US is .0007% better than the UK. See what fun you can have with numbers, boys and girls? To the author: please redo this article isolating people on private insurance in the US vs. Medicare/Medicaid. Lets get some real analysis, not fluff based on opinion. Or or you afraid to present real statistical analysis to your "sheep"?
John – 38% higher means that .25% is 38% more than .18%. .18*1.38=.25 (approx)
Realityseeker – there are many factors contributing to ‘life expectancy’ besides health care. Does Canada have as many drug-war related deaths? And ‘120 million people don’t have health care’ – my goodness, that’s almost half the population of this country. And you believe that? 120 million people ‘don’t have health care’ – meaning they have no access to doctors, hospitals, and medicines – ya might wanna doublecheck your figures…
John,
He says the rate is 38% higher. That means the difference between the two rates divided by our rate. (.25-.18)/.18 = 38%. I’d comment on government schools, but that would only reinforce why the feds shouldn’t run our health care…
To Guest
What difference does Medicare make in this discussion? The technology to cure the cancers is created by for profit corporations funded by our (employed people's) spending on health care. Government reimbursement rates are not enough to cover the costs of most treatments, let alone high tech treatments. Statistically challenged?? How about logic/intellectual honesty challenged.
John
The author is not claiming the rate of death is 38 percentage points higher. He is claiming the rate of death in the UK compared to that of the US is greater by a factor of 1.38. You can’t stop with .25 – .18 = .07 as that only gives the percentage point difference between the two. You have to go one more step to get the relative percentage increase of the .225 over the .18. .07 / .18 = .38. Thus .25 is a 38% higher number relative to the .18.
Just look mat the writings of Cass Sunstein and Dr. Ezekial "mengele" Emanuel, obamas advisors. They both believe in population control throught the death of the elderly, (refuse treatment, their not worth it), and surreptitsiously planting sterilants in the water supply, and as many abotions as they can fund. They are murderers, all, including THE ONE, who voted three times to let newborns die untreated. If you do some research, this is easy to find.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Supporting evidence please. Only 2 of the 8 people that I know that has died of cancer has been over 65. Please provided your evidence.
where do you think the cuts will come from to pay for socialized medicine? Medicare for one … per our president, so yes it will have a huge effect on the cancer death rate. nice try though
This is the one thing Britain can do better than us. I will not only allow it, but I will celebrate it.
You didn't do so well in the math classes aye. LMGDFAO. Stupid liberal.
Offhand I would think that had to do with Canada being cold and miserable and people staying indoors, while here we are afflicted with too many people doing Stupid Things outdoors. I don't think there has been a single week during our "warm season" when the local news didn't report at least one young person killed in a car wreck, for example.
Thankfully global warming will soon take care of that difference. Although down in the southern part of the country we will soon have to issue government-supplied mosquito nets to keep the malaria at bay.
If you can explain why all of the leaders of the world come to America for treatment, and why the drugs we develop to save lives, (which they won't use under OBAMADEATHCARE), make this an awful system, I would appreciate it.
The only reason our system has problems is because of the BILLIONS being spent on criminal illegals, forcing California into bankruptcy.
Kill the truely awful illegals, and our system, which by law treats everyone, would be fine.
If you can look at all the research out there and decide ours is not the best system, you are lying to yourself. There is no country you can site that has a better system overall, or does more for the world through research.
Do you hate all American values, or just capitalism?
CAPITALISM, THE PROFESSION OF THE FREE!
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
where do you get 120 million???? even the government's estimate is 49 million
John – December 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
How does .25%-.18%=.07% become 38%?
John,
.07% is the differential between .18% and .25%. Take .07 and divide it by .18 and you get 38%. Therefore .18 to .25 is a 38% increase.
You do not hear any good stories such as you mention because they do not fit the dismal picture and lies that the Left wants to paint in its never ending quest for power.
I think what Obama considers "better results" would be a HIGHER death rate so the health care system isn't strained by cancer treatment costs!
LMGDFAO. You didn't do too well in the maths, aye? Liberals, can't even do BASIC math.
LOOKS like the SS Libtanic just took ANOTHER hit below the waterline. First Climategate and now this?
The death of liberalism nears.
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/2009/12/02/...
The Anti Liberal Zone
LOOKS like the SS Libtanic just took ANOTHER hit below the waterline. First Climategate and now this?
The death of liberalism nears.
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/2009/12/02/...
The Anti Liberal Zone
Really, you think the quality of care is determined having Medicare or private insurance? I have great insurance and just finish almost 2 years of cancer treatment (about $700,000). My mother-in-law has Medicare and has the same physicians that I do. My sister-in-law went through surgery for ovarian cancer then CHEMO, yet she had no job, money or insurance and she received the same treatment I did (with NO wait). If I didn't have insurance I would have to pay back the money, but I could not have been refused (like my sister-in-law). I'd rather pay out of pocket for the rest of my life, then have to wait or received less quality care. I value my life. Ignorance does cause death and it seems that most people for Socialized health care are truly ignorant of the facts or just drinking coolaid.
Yup and those 500,000 people of which is representative of your percentage are obvioulsy not significant aye? unless it was your son maybe.
Davis, I'll have you know President Obama can do both! He IS ignorant of the facts and isn't truthful! And he does both very well!
Because that would be too easy. Elections happen every November and the politicians want to save their jobs.
1) Those statistic are 10 years old
2) More people die in the US from violence, car crashes and obesity, so it skews the percentages in their favor.
The proper formula would exclude those factors.
This article claiming the USA medical system performs well is receiving much applause. It conveniently neglects the OECD data showing that the USA has significantly lower life expectancy than the UK and Canada, while the USA spends twice as much on its system as these single-payer nations. Please see this chart using OECD data: http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/...
"Among its 19 peer nations the U.S. scores last in infant mortality," reports the Economic Policy Institute.
By the way, Obama's plan, which will keep the private insurance companies in business and their executives living the high life, is unlikely to challenge the misguided priorities of market-driven medicine.
There's a big difference in providing government healthcare for some sixty million people (UK) versus 300 million people (USA), not including illegal immigrants …. it won't work.
how many brits have fled to the US, got their treatment, survived, went back to the UK, and then counted as a UK cancer survivor?
Ok, lets clear up some myths. First, lack of insurance does not mean lack of health care. EVERYBODY in the USA has access to the best health care. If you have no job, insurance or money you still have access to the best care. The issue is if you do have a job or money, but no insurance. In that case you will have to pay for it, even if it is in payments over a long period. I just finished almost 2 years of cancer treatment for Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma, a very aggressive cancer. If I did not receive the immediate CAT scan and then biopsy, I would have died. I couldn't wait 30 days which is the MINIMUM waiting period for GB and Canada (unless your a pet). If I was in GB or Canada, I would have died. My sister-in-law was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She had no job and no insurance, yet within a couple weeks of first seeing the Dr., she had gone through surgery and began CHEMO. My sister-in-law received the same quality care I did. My mother-in-law has Medicare, yet she has the same physician that I do. How about we stop the MYTHS and just battle the ignorance, it would be a lot cheaper then the proposed trillions. That's not to say we don't need change, but we need to first start with allowing insurance to be sold across state lines (competition) and implement tort reform.
If most people who die of cancer are already under a government plan (medicare), why would you want everyone else on the same system? Am I missing something here?
One problem with those infant mortality rates is that the Europeans count live births before the 7 month as miscarriages while we count them as dead babies. There are many other problems such as the Europeans not counting illegals in any of their health stats, while we do.
Don't forget the population of the
U.S. is 300,000,000 X 0.18% = 540,000 deaths
Canada is 35,000,000 X 0.21% = 73,500
UK is 65,000,000 X 0.25% = 162,500
USA WINS! WE'RE #1
It probably isn't the only factor. The smoking rate is higher, for one thing. But their system sucks, and everybody knows it. You won't be diagnosed until later, and you wont' get the treatment you need until it's approved by distant committees. Socialism isn't about individuals. It's about the collective. All the rules and procedures are designed with that in mind. Socialism doesn't care about keeping you alive for your own sake. The degree to which it's interested in keeping you alive depends upon your calculated value to the collective. It's to be expected that the cancer death rate is higher: Cancer is an efficient way of eliminating surplus population. Stalin took it a big step further and simply starved his excess population to death.
Give me one name of someone in the USA that doesn't have health care. ONLY ONE. Lets see you lie. If you are here illegally, you have health care. Now 40+ million may not have health insurance, but they have the best health care in the world. If I broke my arm ( or have cancer etc.) and I went to the University Medical Center here in town, they CANNOT turn me away and I wouldn't have the wait like GB or Canada. If I was homeless or here illegally would I have to pay? Of course not. If I have some money, I'd have to pay what I could. Get you facts straight, or how about REALITY for the realityseeker.
Go look up "amenable mortality" and then try to defend the U.S. healthcare system.
[...] here to see the original: Big Government » Blog Archive » U.K. Cancer Death Rate Is 38 … By admin | category: care health private uk | tags: dems, france, give-power, [...]
The governement's reason for telling the women not to do self exams has a dark motive. Bill Clinton wants to do it for them. He has already started a clinic, called Hands On Health. It's a free clinic. Every woman gets a free breast exam, performed by and compliments of Bill.
Ha, and the reason that Canada’s death rate is lower than GB’s is that they can come to the U.S. for treatment and drugs that they wouldn’t be allowed in Canada or GB. They can get tests here that would take weeks and months over there.
RealitySeeker, “trying to evaluate the quality of a nation’s health care by looking at life expectancy is like trying to estimate the birthrate by counting the number of flowers bought on Valentine’s Day. (Or estimating future pregnancies of women with low self-esteem by adding up the total number of U.S. cities on a Bobby Brown tour and then multiplying by 2.)
There are lots of ways to get pregnant that don’t require flowers or a backstage pass to a Bobby Brown concert, just as there are lots of ways to die that don’t require setting foot inside a doctor’s offfice.
For example, more Americans are murdered with guns than in any other industrialized country. According to a 1997 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the homicide rate with firearms alone was 16 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
That will tend to reduce the U.S.’s “life expectancy” numbers, while telling us absolutely nothing about the country’s medical care. (I promise that if you make it to a hospital alive, you are more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the U.S. than any place else in the world.)”
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=331
It's the old tax scheme of the left. This time it's …..'we spend more than the rest of the world on health care'. You have to read into what this means. It means that the left doesn't want you to spend your money for health care. The left wants to take your money, instead and redistribute it. They gain voters who don't contribute to the Treasury in terms of tax revenue and they get to decide on who, how, what, and where you ……the tax payer has to recieve it. I do not plan on retiring in the U.S. anymore. I intend to become an ex-patriot and retire overseas. It is the beginning of the end of a once great nation. History will prove that the demise of the U.S. came as the Soviets predicted years ago. From within. The irony is that the leftists don't see that they are killing the cow while they are figuring out ways to milk it.
Sort of like why we didn't hear about dissenting opinions on the Global Warming hoax??
Well excepting the ones running to Mexico for fringe treatments I am supposing?
One really should be careful about stats a person is using to make a point. I wonder why the writer of this article didn't mention any other countries that have nationalized (please stop saying "socialized!!!) healthcare systems? Some of them do work. This country does have very good quality technical medical stuff because it and its citizens have been able to afford it for a long time. Now this country is not such a big shot on the financial stage anymore. There is getting to be a larger gap between those who have and those who do not have and as history has shown, the next step is revolution unless something is done. If the something should be nationalized healthcare, I don't know, but there are a lot of people in this country suffering who can't afford proper healthcare and some insurance companies who are ripping people off. As far as immigrants (not illegal, necessarily) let them get some healthcare too! Does anyone remember what is written on the Statue of Liberty? Does anyone care? What does it mean to be American? I challenge someone to answer that because I don't know and from what I read from some of these posts I get discouraged by what it might be.
We’ll be at those rates if BO and his lefties get their way. One way to hold down cost is to let people die and that is the master scheme here. Don’t let anyone tell you different
( .25% / .18% ) – 1 = 38.888%
The UK's rate is the US's rate increased by 38% of what it is now.
But But But!!!! If we just deal in facts how can we SCARE everyone???????
Where there does appear to be differences in health indexes between countries )and the US looks worse), check out how we as a country are counting and how other countries are counting. Infant mortality rates are a good example.
What good is living 3 years longer, if your quality of life is factorially suckier? Personally, I would rather live BETTER than longer. asshat.
[...] cancer death rate in UK 38% higher that US. this is until hussein passes government healthcare. Big Government Blog Archive U.K. Cancer Death Rate Is 38% Higher Than In U.S. [...]
We may spend more in actual dollars, but that doesn't really say much. We are pretty much in the average ballpark as a percentage of GDP.
Anyway, this argument always amazes me. Americans will spend $800k on average over 30 years for a home but get pissed off about spending ~400K over the same period for health? Why should health care be free? It takes money and resources to run health care. There is a real cost, but you bitch about paying. But don't complain about paying ridiculous interest for a home?
I don't understand the logic. Healthcare is important, too bad you would rather use your money to buy chinese trinkets than spend it on YOUR health.
Actually Dick Morris is correct the cancer death rate is higher in UK than USA. This is becasue of one simple reason we live longer in UK, and as you get older the risk of cancer dramatically increases. We live longer in the UK because our healthcare system is far better than the one in USA, having lived and worked in the USA trust me the UK system is light years ahead. Admittedly you want the high end experiemntal treatment that less than 2% of the population actually needs then USA is better but for the basic healthcare to keep 98% of the population healthy the UK does it better.
realityseeker – December 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
If Canadian health care is so bad why is life expectancy in Canada three years longer than in the US? (Check CIA statistics on line) In Britain the article claims 10 000 diagnoses were delayed, but in the US where 120million people don’t have health care are you saying none of those people have delays?
The reason is because we count longevity differently than other countries. For instance any baby born alive after 26 weeks is counted as a live birth in the US and incorporated into longevity statistics. In most other countries babies who die within 24 hours or birth are counted as stillborns. Additionally, we drive more miles per capita than everyone else, thus we suffer more fatal automobile accidents per capita. Both of these things impact the longevity statistics of the US but have nothing to do with availability (or lack thereof) of healthcare. Ann Coulter’s article here summarizes it very well. http://bit.ly/1Nmwl9.
BTW the estimate of AMERICAN citizens who don’t have healthcare insurance is only about 38 million, and most of them still get treated, they just go in debt to stay alive.
You do not hear of this because this is how it is supposed to work. No credit for doing what you are paid for. Only when you take money and then abuse your customers is it necessary. Of course, when one gets exemplary service, it is worthy of mention, but that is due your doctor or hospital. The private insurance companies add 'zero' value and yet amass tremendous profits. And I am a physician that is in this field.
Oh wait, don't look at Finland Sweden Greece and Switzerland all of which have public healthcare and also lower rates than the US in 2005 from the OECD data. Just cherrypick where you need to.
To Guest:
What don't you understand about good people being murdered by bureaucrats.
This is the elephant in the room.
My brother lost his job and insurance. Then his aorta exploded. He was rushed into emergency surgery just in time (immediately) to receive leading edge medicine that saved his life. He had an artificial aorta attached. The bill was hundreds of thousands. He was unemployed and uninsured, yet he was able to negociate the bill down to about 100 grand. He makes minimum payments per month (I dont know the actual amount). HIS LIFESTYLE DID NOT CHANGE ONE LITTLE BIT! He still has his 2 acre, 3 bed ranch on the lake. Still has cars and a boat. NO ONE IS TAKING HIS FORUNE OR HOME! He simply owes a bill which he makes payments on. This is NORMAL! It is better than being dead at age 40 with children. Fortunately he did get his job back.
Its people like you who try to skew statistic data. Showing a percentage is the only way to judge the danger of something in a population. Its absolutely unfair to say "The US has more cancer deaths and is therefore worse!" when the system is obviously helping more of the people who come to them than the UK or Canadian counterparts.
It's George Bush's fault…..
AMEN, BROTHER! Competition and tort reform would not increase the deficit one cent!!! Of course the trial lawyer's lobby and the insurance company's lobby wont hear it!
Common sense should tell us that the record of any government run program will be more expensive and only do half of what it is intended to do……… Lets not kid ourselves in to a false sense of security when it comes to health care we need more of it and better which is the opposite of what Uncle Sam will give us.
How do you come up with THAT conclusion? How does Dick Morris know? Where's his back-up data?
[...] Dick Morris: “In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only [...]
I'd blame Bush for this, seems to work.
You must be logged in to post a comment.