The wonders of socialized medicine

Doesn’t Britain have that wonderful, wonderful, incredibly just too wonderful socialized medicine that Michael Moore wants American to adopt? If it does — and I think that, perhaps, it does — Moore might want to check out this story, which blames problems, in part, on those lovely, lovely, lovely waiting lists that just seem magically to occur under the too, too, too good socialized medicine system:

Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.

England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.

Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.

In total, 52.7pc of women survived for five years after being diagnosed between 2000 and 2002. Only Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Czech Republic and Poland did worse. Just 44.8pc of men survived, putting England in the bottom seven countries.

The team, writing in The Lancet Oncology, found that Britain’s survival rates for the most common cancers – colorectal, lung, breast and prostate – were substantially behind those in Western Europe. In England, the proportion of women with breast cancer who were alive five years after diagnosis was 77.8pc. Scotland (77.3pc) and Ireland (76.2pc) had a lower rate.

Rates for lung cancer in England were poor, with only 8.4pc of patients surviving – half the rate for Iceland (16.8pc). Only Scotland (8.2pc) and Malta (4.6pc) did worse.

Fewer women in England lived for five years after being diagnosed with cervical cancer (58.6pc) despite a national screening programme. This compared to 70.6pc in Iceland. Dr Franco Berrino, who led the study at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, said cancer care was improving in countries that recorded low survival figures. He added: “If all countries attained the mean survival (57pc) of Norway, Sweden and Finland, about 12pc fewer deaths would occur in the five years after diagnosis.”

His co-researcher, Prof Ian Kunkler from the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh, said waiting lists for radiotherapy were partly to blame.

“Although there has been a substantial investment in radiotherapy facilities, there is still a shortfall,” he said.

Maybe the Dems should check out this story too.  They might learn something.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. greag says

    As usual, Bookworm, your devastating critiques of your opponents’ position rely on one logical fallacy after another. You must be one hell of a lawyer.

  2. says

    Unless you’re able to empanel a truly stupid jury, greag, you’ll have to actually produce evidence and an argument to win your case against the Bookworm. And the jury in this court actually thinks for themselves, so let’s hear the argument, rather than just the snark.

  3. greag says

    Don Q, this particular blog is hardly the place to discuss anything, as numerous posters over the past many months have discovered. As far as the Book’s logical fallicies are concerned, they’re easy enough to ID, I suspect even for her.

  4. says

    Hey, Earl, I stand corrected. Greag is capable of insults and excuses. Still no case, though.

    Greag, seriously, what could be done to make this a better place to discuss things? You’re the only one here just using insults and excuses; everybody else is having a great time discussing things.

  5. greag says

    Don’t fret, Don Q. The give and take of ideas is hardly part of the conservative ethos, and hence, you aren’t very good at it; have little interest in it. The process, simply doesn’t lend itself, for example, to your cheerleading for the imposition of a police state (see Book’s Malkin post above), which is the purpose of this blog. You’re authoritarians and fascists, so chill out and enjoy it.

  6. says

    Greag, for somebody who reads, you certainly don’t read very carefully. I’m a libertarian on social issues. Anyway, you are the one who uses insults and excuses to avoid the give and take of ideas. Contrary to your contention, conservatives thrive on the give and take of ideas, because they actually have ideas. Liberals invented political correctness and fight actively against free speech (especially on campuses) because they are afraid of the give and take. You come here to the Bookwormroom and do nothing but insult while all those around you are engaged in thoughtful give and take. If you choose not to join the discussion perhaps it’s because you are also afraid of the give and take. It’s so much easier to call someone a fascist than to engage in a real discussion of ideas, isn’t it?

    As for the Malkin piece, do you really think that suggesting a newspaper should cooperate with the FBI by honoring its request to help it find people the FBI wishes to question is fascist? One problem with liberals is that they completely debase the language. Surely fascism means something more than a newspaper printing a picture taken in a public place! Be serious!

  7. greag says

    Psst … Don? I’m well aware of your self-identification as Libertarian, which is merely code for fascist – As, operationally, the Libertarian, authoritarian conservative and Bush-era Republican (distinctions without meaning) all currently promote policies that easily conform with fascism (for which there are at least 14 criteria; of which Book’s postings fulfill many). Anyway, the opportunity to witness the apologetics supporting fascist politics is my draw in reading this blog.

    And, Don, please have some respect for your own intelligence and recognize that “give and take” is remarkably absent from the community of fellow travelers who find the right-wing information Book posts useful. This blog is narrowly focused on – and successful at – preaching to party apparatchiks. And providing them a place to voice their support for authoritarian views.

    And publishing in the newspaper the faces of citizens who haven’t been accused of a crime (nor, evidently, thought to have committed a crime), for the purpose of facilitating the state’s “identification” of those citizens? Well, you’re the lawyer. I’ll let you brief us on how – by “Libertarian” legal theory – that fails to violate civil rights.

  8. says

    I am more convinced than ever that greag is a performance artist who has decided to use my blog as his stage. That’s the only way I can explain his approach to argument, which is to ignore facts, logic and analysis, and simply devote himself to creative, label-heavy name calling. It’s a joke! I don’t know what greag is in real life, but right now he’s someone taking the mickey out of all of us.

  9. says

    Well, sure, Book and Z, but I’m having fun with him. The man equates libertarianism with authoritarianism, which could only be done by one who makes distinctions without consideration of meaning. Certainly he’s good for a laugh and he might someday say something worth actually discussing. For example, he claims there are at least 14 criteria of fascism and that libertarians promote policies which “easily conform” with them. This I gotta hear! Greag, my man, what are the 14 criteria and which of my libertarian posts have ever conformed to any of them?

    Publishing a picture taken in a public place in a newspaper doesn’t violate anybody’s rights. (Publishing a picture taken in a private place is another matter altogether!) It in no way violates anybody’s liberties. By the way, the newspaper also has the perfect right not to publish the picture. It has the right to choose and Book has the right to disapprove of that choice. Libertarians support all of these rights and choices and a healthy “give and take” discussion of all of them. The fascists are the ones who would compel the paper to act in a certain way and the ones who would call people names merely for expressing their opinion on the subject. Oh, my, that makes you the fascist, Greag. Sorry about that.

  10. says

    Well, greag….since “The give and take of ideas is hardly part of the conservative ethos, and hence, you (DQ) aren’t very good at it; have little interest in it.”, then show us how it’s done. I’m sure you can do it, although so far we’ve not seen any evidence. Looking over your three posts on this particular topic, I can’t find a single idea that you’ve offered.

    Be a man, greag – put up or shut up.

  11. says

    Yeah, Y, but on the other hand he can’t put up, either. You’re right, of course, that he’s of little use here (though I remain convinced he could be of use if he’d just engage on the merits, without the insults, there seems little chance of that actually happening) but I have so much fun playing with him that I can’t resist sometimes.

  12. says

    Better yet, greag, why don’t you wash your mouth out with soap, clear the cobwebs from your brain, drop the insults and join in the constructive conversation? I’m still waiting for those 14 points and how they fit with my libertarian posts. That would be a great place to start. Otherwise, you are just proving Y-man’s point and mine. You can’t put up or shut up.

  13. greg says

    You missed some …

    For insight into the happy relationship between Libertarian and Authoritarian politics you need to go no further than your own post above.

    “Publishing a picture taken in a public place in a newspaper doesn’t violate anybody’s rights.”

    You go on from there and somewhat inelegantly back away from your earlier demands for the paper to publish the photographs. But, regardless, you conveniently ignore the problem: That the purpose of Malik’s, Book’s and your insistence that the paper publish the photos is to aid the state in identifying – rounding up – citizens who haven’t committed any crime, yet the state dislikes them. THAT’s a police state. THAT’s what you – as a Libertarian – support and want. Fact is, Libertarians talk the talk but walk in lockstep with conservative authoritarians.

  14. says

    g wants you to deny that you are whatever you are, Don. His stage that he is directing commands that you must deny and he must accuse, for his little game to work.

    one of the reasons g avoids me is because I don’t read or go by his script. Nor is my behavior adaptable to his narration.

    g expects you to deny his accussations, Don. It simply makes his world more real to him when you do.

    A narcissist’s strange relationship with himself has many ramifications for his relationship to others, which is just as warped.

    He relates to himself as a fictional character. He also authors the story.

    Everyone has a personal narrative, but a narcissist’s gives new meaning to the term.

    He relates to you as but a character, not a real person.

    Now, imagine you’re a novelist writing away, and some character comes out on the page telling you that, no, the story doesn’t go this way: it goes that way.

    Bizarre, eh? Well, in a way, that’s what you are doing when you contradict the narcissist’s fantasy. He has utter, utter contempt for reality and truth. He is the creator of his own universe, which he makes up on the fly.

    No exaggeration.

    He is like a little child playing Pretend with her friends. She wants to author the story, and her little friends must just play along. She will stamp her foot and yell at a playmate who doesn’t like the role she’s assigned him and cry, “NO! You’re not supposed to that! You’re supposed to do this!”

    Narcissists don’t dare admit that this is what they’re up to with their pathological lying. Probably they repress consciousness of it themselves. But this is what they’re doing when they tell you bizarre lies that they (should) know you couldn’t possibly believe.

    They don’t want you to BELIEVE it. They just want you to play along. They just want you act as though it’s true. They want you not to contradict their fantasy. For, you make it hard for them to maintain their delusions when you don’t play along.

    That’s all they want.

    http://narc-attack.blogspot.com/2007/08/narcissists-strange-relationships.html

  15. says

    Y – You’re probably right. He certainly makes claims (like the 14 points) then refuses to back them up, but at least he tried to engage in comment 25 and that’s worth an answer.

    g – First, please don’t misrepresent me. I never demanded the paper print anything. I only said that making such a suggestion wasn’t fascist. If you are going to take me on, do it honestly. Second, the purpose of the photo was to identify the people so that they could be questioned, nothing more. The purpose is to stop crimes before the are committed, so of course they haven’t committed any crimes yet. There is nothing fascist in this and nothing that violates libertarianism in questioning people who are acting suspiciously. Again, if it were a private picture, that would be something else. And, if it were more than questioning (harassment, imprisonment even though no crime was committed, etc.) that would be another matter entirely. The problem appears to be that you are either unwilling to make such fine distinctions, or assume that I am unable to do so. My views are far more nuanced than you give them credit for, as are most libertarians’ views (and conservatives’ views, for that matter). Now, how about sharing those 14 points?

  16. greg says

    Don, perhaps you should be honest with yourself first. Your contributions to this thread support the thread and its advocacy for publishing in the press a particular photo for the express purpose of recruiting the public to aid the state in rounding up citizens who the state dislikes. It is disingenuous of you

    * to deny your desire to conscript the press for state purposes.
    * to assert a benign erosion in individual liberty in publishing the photo.
    * to claim an absence of affinity in publishing the photo with the practices of authoritarian states.

    The only nuance in your position is its obfuscation of the police state methods you promote.

  17. says

    Greg: Where did the bit about “citizens who the state dislikes” come from? Unless perhaps you mean that the state is interested in people (are they citizens?) who obsessively ride the ferry, checking out all of its inner workings and taking pictures of everything and asking questions that would be most appropriate only for someone contemplating the ferry’s violent destruction. That’s what you mean, right? Everything else you say is unintelligible, but I’m sure that’s because you’re so much smarter than I am.

  18. says

    You see, Don. g is writing script for the pleasure of reading it. That’s all he is doing. You might think he is trying to make some points or forward his views or something, but that’s not what he thinks he is doing.

    The only dots that need to be connected are between the glowing orbs of light orbiting g’s head with absolute obeisance.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply