Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Zeitgeist
ParticipantGot cancer? U.S. V. Europe survival rates:
New York Post- UK’s Bad Medicine: Why US Has Better Odds vs. Cancer:
Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign released a radio ad last week in which the candidate praised American health care for curing him of prostate cancer and wondered what might have happened to him under the socialized medicine practiced in the United Kingdom, where survival rates for that condition are far lower.In the ad, now running in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and thank God I was cured of it – in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.” He drew those statistics from an article I wrote for the summer 2007 issue of City Journal.
Healthcare To Die For in Britain?
by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005)In “Die in Britain, survive in U.S.,” the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain’s universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there’s a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. “Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world,” writes Bartholomew, “and America has the best.”
If you’re a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, “Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.”
Explains Bartolomew: “That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare.” The reason isn’t that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It’s more simple than that. “In America, you are more likely to be treated,” writes Bartholomew, “and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.”
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=221ParticipantGot cancer? U.S. V. Europe survival rates:
New York Post- UK’s Bad Medicine: Why US Has Better Odds vs. Cancer:
Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign released a radio ad last week in which the candidate praised American health care for curing him of prostate cancer and wondered what might have happened to him under the socialized medicine practiced in the United Kingdom, where survival rates for that condition are far lower.In the ad, now running in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and thank God I was cured of it – in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.” He drew those statistics from an article I wrote for the summer 2007 issue of City Journal.
Healthcare To Die For in Britain?
by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005)In “Die in Britain, survive in U.S.,” the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain’s universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there’s a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. “Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world,” writes Bartholomew, “and America has the best.”
If you’re a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, “Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.”
Explains Bartolomew: “That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare.” The reason isn’t that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It’s more simple than that. “In America, you are more likely to be treated,” writes Bartholomew, “and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.”
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=221ParticipantGot cancer? U.S. V. Europe survival rates:
New York Post- UK’s Bad Medicine: Why US Has Better Odds vs. Cancer:
Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign released a radio ad last week in which the candidate praised American health care for curing him of prostate cancer and wondered what might have happened to him under the socialized medicine practiced in the United Kingdom, where survival rates for that condition are far lower.In the ad, now running in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and thank God I was cured of it – in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.” He drew those statistics from an article I wrote for the summer 2007 issue of City Journal.
Healthcare To Die For in Britain?
by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005)In “Die in Britain, survive in U.S.,” the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain’s universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there’s a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. “Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world,” writes Bartholomew, “and America has the best.”
If you’re a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, “Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.”
Explains Bartolomew: “That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare.” The reason isn’t that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It’s more simple than that. “In America, you are more likely to be treated,” writes Bartholomew, “and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.”
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=221ParticipantGot cancer? U.S. V. Europe survival rates:
New York Post- UK’s Bad Medicine: Why US Has Better Odds vs. Cancer:
Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign released a radio ad last week in which the candidate praised American health care for curing him of prostate cancer and wondered what might have happened to him under the socialized medicine practiced in the United Kingdom, where survival rates for that condition are far lower.In the ad, now running in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and thank God I was cured of it – in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.” He drew those statistics from an article I wrote for the summer 2007 issue of City Journal.
Healthcare To Die For in Britain?
by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005)In “Die in Britain, survive in U.S.,” the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain’s universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there’s a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. “Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world,” writes Bartholomew, “and America has the best.”
If you’re a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, “Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.”
Explains Bartolomew: “That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare.” The reason isn’t that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It’s more simple than that. “In America, you are more likely to be treated,” writes Bartholomew, “and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.”
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=221ParticipantI was against the booze ban because I thought there were enough existing laws on the books to clean the beach up, but the cops and the city wanted the easy way out. It is nice to have the beach back for families, but I would have preferred that public drunks were arrested. That alone would have curtailed the drunken, boorish behavior.
ParticipantI was against the booze ban because I thought there were enough existing laws on the books to clean the beach up, but the cops and the city wanted the easy way out. It is nice to have the beach back for families, but I would have preferred that public drunks were arrested. That alone would have curtailed the drunken, boorish behavior.
ParticipantI was against the booze ban because I thought there were enough existing laws on the books to clean the beach up, but the cops and the city wanted the easy way out. It is nice to have the beach back for families, but I would have preferred that public drunks were arrested. That alone would have curtailed the drunken, boorish behavior.
ParticipantI was against the booze ban because I thought there were enough existing laws on the books to clean the beach up, but the cops and the city wanted the easy way out. It is nice to have the beach back for families, but I would have preferred that public drunks were arrested. That alone would have curtailed the drunken, boorish behavior.
ParticipantI was against the booze ban because I thought there were enough existing laws on the books to clean the beach up, but the cops and the city wanted the easy way out. It is nice to have the beach back for families, but I would have preferred that public drunks were arrested. That alone would have curtailed the drunken, boorish behavior.
ParticipantIf it is legalized, I hope they tax the hell out of junk food to make a killing on it as a companion to the MJ. That would give me more incentive to not buy Cheetos.
ParticipantIf it is legalized, I hope they tax the hell out of junk food to make a killing on it as a companion to the MJ. That would give me more incentive to not buy Cheetos.
ParticipantIf it is legalized, I hope they tax the hell out of junk food to make a killing on it as a companion to the MJ. That would give me more incentive to not buy Cheetos.
ParticipantIf it is legalized, I hope they tax the hell out of junk food to make a killing on it as a companion to the MJ. That would give me more incentive to not buy Cheetos.
ParticipantIf it is legalized, I hope they tax the hell out of junk food to make a killing on it as a companion to the MJ. That would give me more incentive to not buy Cheetos.
-
AuthorPosts