« Iran Staunches Flow of Weapons into Iraq | Main | The Chrysler Axe Massacre »

Rudy the Serial Liar

No wonder Rudy Giuliani is at the top of the Republican polls, he's proven himself to be as good a liar as George Bush.

One of Rudy's more recent lies is the one he's using in a radio ad regarding Health Care.

"My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82%," Rudy says. "My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44% under socialized medicine.

"You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat."

The facts:

Rudy's wandering around with the old prostate care canard. It's -- no pun intended -- crap. England and America have vritually the same mortality rates from prostate cancer. In England (as of 1997), 28 males of every 100,000 died from prostate cancer. In America, then number was 26. The difference comes in "incidence" -- there are many more diagnoses of prostate cancer in America, as we have an aggressive screening process.

That isn't the only lie Rudy keeps repeating over and over:

"The leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America. I mean, just get an idea of where that philosophy comes from."

That's nothing but Bullshit (emphasis mine).

Rudy uses this line on Hillary frequently. But as has been conclusively proven, it's an almost comically dishonest distortion of what Hillary actually said in a 1996 interview with Brian Lamb.

In that interview, Hillary quoted another author saying that the unfettered free market had been radically disruptive, not destructive, and actually went on to praise free markets, saying "that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity ... but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well."

With a serial liar in the White House, and serial bullshit artists like Michelle Malkin in the right wing media, it is no surprise that a serial liar would rise in prominence in the Republican polls.

These are the heroes of the the right - those who ignore reality and just make up facts that suit the conservative agenda. If you lie to conservatives and paint them a picture of the world as they wish it was they'll vote for that "heaven on earth" even though it's just fantasy. It's the world "as they want it to be" and they will cast their vote in favor of the fantasy world Rudy and others project.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.4/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (7)

epador[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I would think one would need to quote survival statistics for the STAGE of Rudy's cancer at diagnosis in the UK and the US. Otherwise his point is as unsubstantiated as your rebuttal, which also fails to address this directly. It still stands that even though the diagnosis rate is much less in the UK (due to less screening), for every 12 people that die in the US from prostate cancer, 15 die in the UK. Age standardized risk, originally much lower (undoubtedly due to lack of diagnosis) in the Pre-70's paralleled the US in the 90's and then rose above US rates more recently.

http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/35/11/690/FIG1

I had more trouble finding stage related rates for the UK, but at least I've looked; Anyone else out there have a better skinny on this?

At any rate, anyone, including any politician, will use statistics out of context to try to prove their point. In my example above, the 12 and 15 are per 100,000 population.

Steve Crickmore[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Lee, from a updated article by Ezra Klein

Giuliani's cancer was treated by way of a therapy called Bradychardia, which involves implanting small, rice-sized radioactive capsules into the prostate gland. The technique was developed [PDF] by a researcher from Copenhagen, Denmark. Denmark, you'll recall, is both in Europe and has a universal healthcare system. It's a wonder Giuliani didn't stalk out of his hospital on principle.

The Mahalblog blog covers this pretty well too.

Everyday gets more depressing, but eventually Rudy's downright deceit will be so accumulative that the tipping point will come. and Americans with any sense will say enough. I just hope this occurs after Rudy gets the nomination not before...I think Romney would be a slightly more resonable and responsible candidate..but that should be enough to disqualify him in the minds of the the 'Repubs'.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Epador -- so you agree that Rudy's 82% and 44% figures are not correct -- you just want to argue about how much he's lying?

Steve -- Rudy is till on track to take the Republican nomination for Liar-In-Chief much to the consteration of the far right who (a) hates his stand on moral issues and (b) knows he will be thrashed in the general election.

epador[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Hmm, I didn't say they were correct or incorrect, just used inaccurately - accurate statistics used in a misleading way, popular in politics of any color, advertising, and even in some medical journals.

And I believe brachytherapy is the correct term. Its been around since the Curies began messing around with radioactive substances. Research has been done around the world. Most in the US. I don't think the Danes hold a patent on it.

http://www.americanbrachytherapy.org/aboutBrachytherapy/history.cfm

epador[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Additionally, in the article referenced by Ezra, you will see most of the research on prostate brachytherapy originated in the US. The Dane who did the "gold seed" work trained a number of other Danes, who authored the article. By the way, they all emigrated to the US and practice/research here. What does that say about socialized medicine?

Steve Crickmore[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Epador..Good point..I probably should have highlighted another part of the Klein article. instead

Giuliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer in April 2000. At the time, he was mayor of New York, which is to say, a city employee. Presumably, he was covered under the same health insurance system that nearly all New York state employees use - the New York State Health Insurance Program (NY-Ship). NY-Ship is a fairly common beast. Most states have something similar, almost all of them modeled off of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which provides insurance to about 8 million federal employees.

Giuliani could have been taking his own prostrate health issue to illustrate the opposite point that 47 Americans without insurance or x million that are underinsured can't just walk in off the street into a doctor's office, clinic or the emergency department hospital to have early detection of prostrate cancer or treatment as Guiliani could at Mt. Sinai hospital, which was his privilege under a government official or state employee plan.

epador[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Now that's a fairly accurate statement Steve.

To be fair, however, also consider how long would he have to wait in the UK (unless he used private insurance) to be seen, and would he have had an exam that would have diagnosed him at early stage?

BTW, the earlier age you are at diagnosis, the nastier and more aggressive Prostate Cancer is. Tumors at age 60 or less tend to be a lot more deadly than those at 75.

I wholeheartedly agree we tend to treat Prostate Cancer aggressively in this country both in screening and treatment compared to many other countries. And I am not sure that's the best use of health care dollars when its applied to folks in the older age ranges.

I entered this thread trying to point out that the use of statistics in politics or medicine is easily and often abused, and not a patented trick used solely by RG. I'm no fan of managed care, whether it is socialized, militarized, or privatized. I've practiced under all three.

Currently I medically supervise a clinic subsidized by Federal Grants and Medicaid dollars to provide care to un-, underinsured and anyone else who like us. We get paid over a hundred dollars every time we see a Medicaid patient, no matter what we do. No one else in the county will see these patients, because they get paid the standard rates, which barely covers the cost of billing the services. Since about half of our patients have no insurance, and many of them can't or won't pay the minimum payment of under $20 a visit, the Medicaid "over" payment and Federal grants help cover our operating costs.

Many of our patients are either homeless or live in very unhealthy conditions. Their lifestyles are dependent upon government or private charity. Others work low end jobs with seasonal or episodic employment, or have undocumentable income (they're criminals). No practitioners, and even the ER's here, want to see them. The ER's have no choice, and they GREATLY appreciate we're here to help take the burden off of them. Under a socialized medicine system, these folks would still not be seen as "desirable" patients - they require a lot of resources, and a fair number are unpleasant and difficult to deal with.

We're trying to expand services to cover all those who need care and don't have a provider. Its tricky spending money to make enough money to stay open when you are dependent upon annual Federal Grants and the whims of Congressional Funding, State Funding, and charitable donations. But we have a special status (that some of the proposed Universal Health Programs want to cancel) that allows us to exist and tailor our health care product to the medically indigent.

If we were part of a universal health care system as suggested by those US proponents with any chance of getting into control and implementing their systems, however, everyone would be competing for the same dollars. Somehow I bet the big health care systems would figure out a way to beat us to the punch. Our community owned and operated clinic would close, a big hospital system would run the health care clinics in the county for everyone, and somehow, our expensive to care for and unattractive clientele would be likely left in the lurch.

I think that if our reimbursement system were radially changed to favor primary care providers and not specialists, that many of the complaints about our health care system would be addressed. The insurance system, however, that currently buffers the user and the provider, coupled with the poor re-imbursement to primary care providers, encourages a run away spending spree for specialty care and medication that has driven up the cost of care here, made medical insurance way too expensive as currently practiced, and produced an increase in under and un-insured people.

Government run health care won't fix the problem. Medicare is in fact partly part of the problem - it's re-imbursement scheme drives all the private insurances to follow. A family doc who convinces a patient to stop drinking and smoking so their reflux esophagitis goes away gets diddly compared to the specialist who performs an upper endoscopy to diagnose the disease and the drug industry gets for the medication used to treat those who don't quit.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.