Cancer Survival... Krugman v Rudy/grater

T

Timshel

New member
Hate to defend Rudy... Krugman claims Rudy was lying and states the original author offered no source for his numbers (meanwhile Krugman offers no source for his countering stats).

The original article is here... http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

The source is disclosed here (it's the OECD)... http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-31dg.html

Krugman uses different data and then calls Rudy a liar based on it.

And the truth is survival rates for cancer are better in the US across the board... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml
 
rudy got his healthcare from a government financed health insurance plan.

Looks like "socialized" medicine worked out well for Rudy.;
 
OK, RS, you linked us up to a highly partisan source, City Journal (a publication the the rightwing Manhattan Institute)

Here's the analysis from a fiercely non-partisan source, factcheck.org



A Bogus Cancer Statistic
October 30, 2007

Giuliani falsely claims that only 44 percent of prostate cancer patients survive under "socialized medicine" in England.
Summary

In a new radio ad, Rudy Giuliani falsely claims that under England’s “socialized medicine” system only 44 percent of men with prostate cancer survive.

We tracked down the source of that number, which turns out to be the result of bad math by a Giuliani campaign adviser, who admits to us that his figure isn’t "technically" a survival rate at all. Furthermore, the co-author of the study on which Giuliani’s man based his calculations tells us his work is being misused, and that the 44 percent figure is both wrong and “misleading.” A spokesperson for the lead author also calls the figures "incorrect survival statistics."

It’s true that official survival rates for prostate cancer are higher in the U.S. than in England, but the difference is not nearly as high as Giuliani claims. And even so, the higher survival rates in the U.S. may simply reflect more aggressive diagnosing of non-lethal cancers, according to the American Cancer Society.

Actually, men with prostate cancer are more likely to die sooner if they don’t have health insurance, according to a recent study published in one of the American Medical Association’s journals. Giuliani doesn’t mention that.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html
 
The source I gave states it is not a survival rate. He took the number of deaths from prostate cancer divided by the number of diagnosis and subtracted that from 100%. Survival rates are based on five years.

Rudy's ad does not call it a survival rate.

And what is funny is Krugman then compares the "not a survival rate," US figure of 82% with the UK survival rate of 74.4% to make the claim that the number "still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate" when the US's actual survival rate is 98.4% (your source and Krugman's). 74.4% is more than a bit lower than 98.4%. It's a lot lower.

Krugman is full of shit and a liar.
 
either way, as a gvt employee, rudy's healthcare was paid for by OUR TAXES, a socialized program, as you would call it on any other day of the week
 
Care4all said:
either way, as a gvt employee, rudy's healthcare was paid for by OUR TAXES, a socialized program, as you would call it on any other day of the week
Click to expand...

Yeah. How's it go? 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? Unless you're one of them?
 
Beefy, do you actually think that just by having an IZ avatar you can automatically become Hawaiian? Try turning into an Asian. Then it might work better.
 
Watermark said:
Beefy, do you actually think that just by having an IZ avatar you can automatically become Hawaiian? Try turning into an Asian. Then it might work better.
Click to expand...

In fact, I simply gained this avatar in leiu of moving to Hawaii, and I've been just as satisfied since, the rest has been simple fantasy.
 
And I would make a substantial bet that given no health insurance and the Canadian flavor Health care would win. Typical libertarian denial of reality. In our so called superior system you can find probably millions of equally stupid situations. Even 'House' gets confused.
 
midcan5 said:
And I would make a substantial bet that given no health insurance and the Canadian flavor Health care would win. Typical libertarian denial of reality. In our so called superior system you can find probably millions of equally stupid situations. Even 'House' gets confused.
Click to expand...

You want to edit that into something coherent?
 
I can guess what he is saying...

And I would make a substantial bet that survival rates among Americans without health insurance are lower than Canada's.

...
This part is still unclear...

Typical libertarian denial of reality. In our so called superior system you can find probably millions of equally stupid situations. Even 'House' gets confused.
...

I am guessing that he is saying that survival rates on cancer are isolated factors. That's a pretty dumb comment, so I am giving him the opportunity to clarify before I jump on him for it.
 
RStringfield said:
I can guess what he is saying...

And I would make a substantial bet that survival rates among Americans without health insurance are lower than Canada's.

...
This part is still unclear...

Typical libertarian denial of reality. In our so called superior system you can find probably millions of equally stupid situations. Even 'House' gets confused.
...

I am guessing that he is saying that survival rates on cancer are isolated factors. That's a pretty dumb comment, so I am giving him the opportunity to clarify before I jump on him for it.
Click to expand...

The "House" reference whizzed by me, I have to admit.

I must admit to being confused by Giulliani's claim though. I'm not arguing about it, it's been proven to be wrong, but I wonder why the heck he brought it up in the first place?
 
It has not proven to be wrong. Did he misuse the stat somewhat, sure. Giuliani's stat is not terribly useful at all (as it mixes populations) but it does give some rough estimate and when we look at the real survival rates of 98.4% US to 74.4% England there is a significant difference.

I just find it funny how Krugman busts his balls for it, while telling blatant lies. I mean he can't claim to just be ignorantly confused by the stats. He clearly mixed real survival rates with the methodolgy used by Giuliana to mislead.
 
RStringfield said:
It has not proven to be wrong. Did he misuse the stat somewhat, sure. Giuliani's stat is not terribly useful at all (as it mixes populations) but it does give some rough estimate and when we look at the real survival rates of 98.4% US to 74.4% England there is a significant difference.

I just find it funny how Krugman busts his balls for it, while telling blatant lies. I mean he can't claim to just be ignorantly confused by the stats. He clearly mixed real survival rates with the methodolgy used by Giuliana to mislead.
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering why he (Giuliani) would pull statistics out of...sorry, I was about to use an inappropriate phrase given the topic, I'll rephrase.

If Giuliani is somehow trying to prove that the health care system in the US is superior to that of the UK then he hasn't. Instead he's mired himself in a debate about the accuracy of his interpretation (doesn't matter who handed it to him, he owns it) of certain statistics. This is a very bad political mistake for Giuliani. He must have a Kerry adviser on his team, the same idiot that missed the Swiftboaters coming after Kerry.
 
The article uses one stage four person's denial of a questionable medicine as proof one system is better than another. Do you even realize what stage IV cancer is?

We have the same situation here. I have friends in this country who were denied similar treatments. Our health-care, even when you have coverage, is exactly the same sometimes.

I am sure Americans would select some health-care over no health-care. That has to be obvious even to dreamy libertarians types.

The statistics only make sense if the patients are covered equally. For instance, do the higher, so called recovery rates, mean the same. A good friend's wife just died after nine years, I would bet she was considered a recovery past five years. If her treatment had been sooner she would have possibly been cured. Same as Canada, cost comes before life.

Statistics mean shit most of the time.

'House' is the fictional TV doctor who manages to cure the most complex aliments know to man. The cost would be ridiculous but it makes an interesting show. My wife has me watching sometimes and on occasion it is actually profound.
 
midcan5 said:
The article uses one stage four person's denial of a questionable medicine as proof one system is better than another. Do you even realize what stage IV cancer is?

We have the same situation here. I have friends in this country who were denied similar treatments. Our health-care, even when you have coverage, is exactly the same sometimes.
Click to expand...

The article I linked on the Telegraph site, was mainly referenced for the overall survival rate stats. This is not one isolated incident with special circumstances.

I am sure Americans would select some health-care over no health-care. That has to be obvious even to dreamy libertarians types.
Click to expand...

I'll pass..

The statistics only make sense if the patients are covered equally. For instance, do the higher, so called recovery rates, mean the same. A good friend's wife just died after nine years, I would bet she was considered a recovery past five years. If her treatment had been sooner she would have possibly been cured. Same as Canada, cost comes before life.

Statistics mean shit most of the time.
Click to expand...

The US is much better in diagnosis.

And survival rates are what they are. Your complaint sorta argues for Rudy's stat. The stat Rudy used would give a rough idea of cure rates since it takes a snapshot of deaths from prostate cancer regardless of how long from the treatment. But using different populations...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top