Rudy: Expecting Me To Tell Truth Is "Quibbling"

Comments (28)

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 3:49 PM:

what an ass

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 2, 2007 3:53 PM:

One side I see his point . . . The corporate media has not required the present Administration to speak the truth once during the last seven years.

On the side, people do not choose to avoid Britian for healthcare reasons . . . They do it cuz the food sucks . . .

Yo! You folk with no cosmetic dentistry . . . There are more spices than salt, pepper, and paparika . . .

Jan wrote on November 2, 2007 4:02 PM:

Although I believe in "Be careful what you wish for" this is exactly why I feel that Rudy would be the best Republicant to run against. Ditto he's an ass.

I guess Rudy doesn't know about all the Americans who "leave" the United States and "go" to Canada for their prescription drugs.

I only have experience with this living in Greece for a couple of years, not Britain, but I expect it's about the same:
The only foreigners who come here for elective surgery (non-elective surgery is free) are a lot richer than Rudy Giuliani.
The rest of the foreigners have patience... They wait and get it free.

We're really not talking about that in this election anyway (it's a GOP meme) but that's the Truth of universal healthcare.

In my experience with Europe's universal healthcare, what you need now is fast and it's free.
What you need at some point does take a little longer... but then it's free.

Ken Jackson wrote on November 2, 2007 4:42 PM:

When I have serious medical issues, I go back home to Tahiti to have them taken care of.

I am a Dual National, Naturalized French and live in French Polynesia. At present I am in the United States giving care to a 89 year old mother. A year and a half ago I tore my left achilles tendon and after having a hopeless exchange with the VA, (I am retired US Navy) I decided to fly back to Tahiti and have it taken care of in our little remote island hospital. The total cost, to me, was about 50 dollars US. This included all medicines, doctors visits, xrays, sonograms,cast, crutches and even a complete physical along with the 4 weeks of rehab after the cast was removed. I came out of it with my left foot and leg in perfect condition and an opinion that Socialized Medicine is by and far much better than the crap being performed in the United States.

At present, I have no need for medical attention, but if something should develop, you can rest assured that I will not be having anything major done to me here in Oregon..

Just this old Chief's 2¢

Bloix wrote on November 2, 2007 5:11 PM:

Isn't the proper question, find me the English person who comes to the US for prostate treatment?

Watts wrote on November 2, 2007 5:33 PM:

Hey, Richard, I know the "British food sucks" joke is a long-standing tradition, but it's not just old, it's kind of out of date. Some of the most highly-regarded restaurants in the world are in the UK these days, from the world-renowned Fat Duck to Restaurant Gordon Ramsay (known to American audiences mostly as "that tall jerk on reality TV shows," but he gets away with being such a jerk because yes, he really is that damn good).

bob wrote on November 2, 2007 5:37 PM:

Rudy is just a dummy.

First, prostate cancer treatment has become so routine that very few people leave their home country to seek it.

Second, he's still not addressing the fact that no one is proposing a British-style system.

I bet the conservatives wish France had national healthcare, or in their words socialized medicine, instead of Britain. So much easier to rail against the French. I'm sure most Americans assume that the British, being, you know, kind of like us, have pretty good healthcare.

MJN wrote on November 2, 2007 6:29 PM:

Another similiarity between Hillary and Rudy... they both stretch the truth to meet their situation. I love the title of this article..... but then it fits my image of Rudy. Sorry not a Rudy fan.A man that wants us to believe he is Presidential material needs to have integrity. Rudy has shown us that he even lacks it in his family life by the dishonorable way that he handled his divorse from his second wife. So I guess we now know that all of his statements and ads might just stretch the truth. I guess we might not be able to trust "his promise " to appoint conservative judges.

OxyCon wrote on November 2, 2007 6:31 PM:

Benito is right, DAMMIT!
Leave Il Duce Giuliani alone, you Libruls!
When you are a Supreme Leader, whatever you say is the truth.

CJ wrote on November 2, 2007 7:10 PM:

Give Rudy a break. He still hasn't quite grasped the fact that his statements are all a simple matter of pulling a record or archive up to get the exact quote. He, like his idol Bush, both believe if they cover their own eyes no one else can see them. They enjoy controversy and confrontation. They crave power and believe all it takes to wipe a slate clean is to stand before a tv camera and grin and all is erased and forgiven. Rudy intends to stay the course on what Bush has established and Hillary intends to restore all of Bill's policies, plus create all the government give-away programs that she couldn't get off the ground by hammering away at Bill while he was president. Rudy and Hillary together make a toxic soup to rival any chemical warfare ever even thought of in the most sinister mind.

anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 8:14 PM:

Why doesn't Giuliani know that we spend more than TWICE as much as the British do and our system just isn't that much better? Does he not know that our system is roughly comparable to France, or Switzerland, or Germany, all of which spend about half of what we do? Seriously, what's wrong with him? How can he not have noticed we're getting ripped off?

Also, why is he talking about England as if copying them is a choice? Nobody wants England's stupid healthcare system.

The Democrats are talking about a healthcare system that looks a lot like the one he had when he was mayor, the one that saved his life. An AMERICAN system.

Really, what is wrong with this guy? He keeps using the word "socialism" but I don't think it means what he thinks it means. He doesn't know very important, very basic facts about an unbelievably important area of domestic policy, he denies saying things that he said a few hours ago on tape...is he on drugs? Is he just stupid? Did something fall on his head on 9/11 and all the cameras missed it?

Is he just so arrogant he thinks he can make things up and it doesn't matter? Because, um, maybe that's true when you're a city mayor haven't got that much juice, but when you're President of the United States, making stuff up and then pigheadedly acting on it has HUGE consequences. And not good ones.

Maybe he's like that guy in memento. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_(film)

gregor wrote on November 2, 2007 10:00 PM:

Well someone present to him one of the medical tourists to India which even though not now a part of the Raj is still in the Commonwealth.

mark phillips wrote on November 2, 2007 10:47 PM:

its seems to me its a battle between the the haves controlling the have nots and the gap is getting wider.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on November 2, 2007 11:27 PM:

Who paid for your treatment, Rudy? And by the way, try to remember that Britain is an ally. You seem to be slamming them lately.

What an ass. Seriously. Is there any treatment for that?

Mike Bakunin wrote on November 3, 2007 12:37 AM:

Disingenuous turd.

illinitarheel wrote on November 3, 2007 10:14 AM:

Though it's really irrelevant, I feel I must join the defense of British restaurants. The use of exotic spices and flavors everywhere -- e.g. the U.S. and Britain included -- is a product of foreign cuisine -- Indian, Thai, Chinese, etc. Britain is full of these restaurants, especially Indian. Foreigners could say that American fare relies on salt as its main spice, and its food lacks imagination and sophistication. The land of hamburgers, macaroni and cheese, and fried chicken has no right to poke fun at the British.

jmay wrote on November 3, 2007 12:32 PM:

it's really amazing, the journey rudy has gone on. On September 10th, 2001 he was leaving the mayorship of New York amid scandal about his marital infidelities. I truly believe that on that day Rudy believed his political career was over.

That's why 9/11 was probably Rudy's finest day. Like the rest of us, he was in shock, and I don't think it dawned on him until days later that this would change everything for him. He still felt he had nothing to gain politically. That's why he acted -- on that day alone -- in a manner of integrity. He reminded New Yorkers first and foremost to help each other and not retaliate against Arab-americans.

That was then. This is now. Rudy's efficacy and integrity seems to be inversely proportional to his ambition. That's the funny thing -- he now glimpses the brass ring, and truly believes he could have it all -- but he's doing everything wrong, surrounding himself with the wrong people, making desperate ploys to be liked (phone calls at the podium, anyone?) and generally carrying on like an ass.

This election cycle will be a final, sad bookend to his political career, and ultimately it will determine how he is remembered: as a man who garnered the good will of a nation in a single, tragic day, who then squandered it with years of petty ambition.

JMOHR wrote on November 3, 2007 2:16 PM:

jmay: Sorry to disagree. Rudy was a divissive figure to New York. He exhibited intollerance to contrary positions. He was arrogant. He believes in the same dictitorial power for the executive of a city or country as does Bush.

Rudy was already in trouble for the way he handled many of the city's needs. His insistence on ignoring the advice of every security service and placing the emergency response center in the World Trade Towers just shows how bad he was. His promotion of Kerick and, yes, his marital affairs were already well known.

Frankly, Rudy is an excellent politician. He knew exactly what he could do with 9/11. Indeed, he attempted to remain in office past the expiration of his term with 9/11 as the excuse. He has tirelessly run his life ever since as America's Mayor. Too bad it was an advertising slogan and not a reality.

Janelle wrote on November 3, 2007 3:40 PM:

On the plus side, the media flustered America's Mare into making his first ever statement which did not contain the words 'nine' and 'eleven'.

Icy Truth wrote on November 3, 2007 5:37 PM:

Jan wrote: "I guess Rudy doesn't know about all the Americans who "leave" the United States and "go" to Canada for their prescription drugs."

-- That's a cute non sequitur. Drugs purchased in Canada aren't better than those in the US, just cheaper.

"I only have experience with this living in Greece for a couple of years, not Britain, but I expect it's about the same ... In my experience with Europe's universal healthcare, what you need now is fast and it's free."

-- Let's define "free", shall we? Compare a US worker earning $20k a year and a worker in Greece earning the equivalent (approx. 13,800 euros). The US worker pays about 28.4% in federal, state & FICA taxes; the Greek pays 46%. That's a difference of $3528 US dollars; and that's before adding in other factors, such as Greece's VAT (with a top rate of 19%, TWICE the average state & local sales tax rate of 8.5% in the US), or their half-a-percent higher rate of inflation, or their higher gasoline prices ($5.59 per gallon). The gov't HAS TO pay for that worker's healthcare, because the gov't has TAKEN AWAY all of the money that worker could've used to purchase it on his own.

That's how "free" it is.

bob wrote: "I bet the conservatives wish France had national healthcare, or in their words socialized medicine, instead of Britain. So much easier to rail against the French."

-- France has had a national health insurance system since 1928, and universal coverage since 1978. Even stand-up comedians (real ones) fact check.

illinitarheel wrote: "The land of hamburgers, macaroni and cheese, and fried chicken has no right to poke fun at the British."

-- Black pudding (blood pudding); 'nuff said.

Icy Poof wrote on November 3, 2007 7:04 PM:

Congrats to Icy Truth for learning how to type with the safety mittens on.

"That's a cute non sequitur. Drugs purchased in Canada aren't better than those in the US, just cheaper."

So, equivalent product at massive savings? Yeah. Why would anyone want that? You Republiklans sure is smart like.

Icy Truth wrote on November 3, 2007 7:19 PM:

"Mike Bakunin wrote: "Disingenuous turd"

-- One assumes he's referring to Eric Kleefeld's intentional misuse of the pronoun "me" (instead of "him") in the headline, which reads like a quote from Rudy rather than as a statement from the author.

-- From today's Associated Press article on this story:

The American Cancer Society says five-year survival rates were 95 percent in the U.S. and 60 percent in the United Kingdom, which includes Britain, in 1993-1995, the most recent time period with data to compare.

Rates are even higher today - 99 percent in the U.S. and an estimated 74 percent in the U.K.

-- Rudy's numbers are erroneous; he should stop spouting them. BUT, the real numbers are no less significant. Better is better. "1 out of every 100" dying is a lot better than "1 out of every 4" dying.

AP: American men are far more likely to undergo screening tests that detect the disease in its earliest stages. That means U.S. survival rates include many men whose lives probably weren't in danger - and whose cancers may never have been noticed in the United Kingdom.

-- So, in the UK, where care is covered by the National Health Service, men are not getting screened for prostate cancer? Why? How effective is that system when it can't provide the most basic of services? And how do we know that the lives of the US men that "weren't in danger" would not have become endangered if they had waited to be screened, as if they were in -- oh, I don't know -- the UK? Don't the numbers support this?

AP: Mortality rates in the two countries are closer - 15 of every 100,000 people die of prostate cancer in the U.K., compared with 12 of 100,000 in the U.S.

-- Notice how this sentence SEEMS to contradict the previous statement on mortality rates? Well, guess what? A higher % of men in the US develop prostate cancer, but a higher % of men in the UK who get it die from it.

Specifically, according to the American Cancer Society (2002 numbers): the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer is 120 per 100,000 in the US and 62 per 100,000 in Western Europe.

So, fewer men in the UK are diagnosed (early OR at all) and, compared to the US, more of those who ARE diagnosed die from it.

Better is better. Rudy's numbers are wrong but his point is correct.

Icy Truth wrote on November 3, 2007 8:47 PM:

It always has to turn personal doesn't it? There's just no way possible to focus ones comments on the issue-at-hand and what was said about it, as opposed to launching a personal attack on the ANONYMOUS person who made the comments, is there? Of course it can also be hard to launch the personal attack, especially when some posters don't use the same anonymous screen name every time.

I am NOT a Republican -- never have been. What is it they say about a person who assumes something?

I called the prescription drugs comment a non sequiter because it is one. This article had nothing to do with how much care costs and everything to do with the relative quality of care in different regions of the world. But, since I've now been asked a question about it. ... Now that, in their words, "Wal-Mart offers over 360 prescription drugs at only $4 per 30-day supply. In only its first year, this program has already saved our customers over $610 million," is the price of prescription drugs as big of an issue as it was a few years ago? It's 13 cents per day!

Mr. Sifter wrote on November 3, 2007 9:31 PM:

cross posted it at my new blog
http://www.standingbeforethefire.com

No, we’re not quibbling a little about the statistics, we’re saying they are completely wrong, based upon fiction, and dishonestly advanced by you.

What? If you don’t have health care in the United States and your not a citizen of the United Kingdom, you don’t get free health care in England, so you might as well buy it here instead of there. If you already have health care coverage in the United States, why fly to England to buy it when you already paid for it here? Especially considering they will charge you an extraordinary rate if they already know you have cancer.

rabbit wrote on November 4, 2007 8:07 AM:

If you're not a citizen of the UK I believe you can still get very cheap, if not free, health care there. At least, that's the way it works in France. While I was on a student visa in France I had free health care paid for by the French government. Other times when I've lived there for a few months at a time on a tourist visa, I have paid between $20 and $30 for doctor visits, including to specialists (that's not the copay, that's the whole bill). A friend who had his appendix removed and stayed in the hospital for four days got the bill and almost fell down when it was in the hundreds, not tens of thousands of dollars. Again, that's the whole bill. There's medical tourism to Thailand, fer chrissakes. If there's not so much to Europe, I suspect that the high cost of hotel stays, not hospital stays, might be the reason.

gcs wrote on November 4, 2007 10:20 AM:

Why, why , why arew once again allowing ourselves to be drawn into a ficticious argument that is entirely BESIDE THE POINT. The point is not what the cancer survival rate is in England or Canada vs. the U.S.

The point is what the cancer survival rate is for someone IN THIS COUNTRY with the best medical care and insurance money can buy (like Rudy) and someone who doesn't have any health insurance because he or she cannot afford it.

Why can't one single thinking journalist ask Rudy point blank what the cancer survival rate is in America for people without health insurance? Just one. Please.

mr.ed wrote on November 4, 2007 12:03 PM:

He's toast when the 6 figure Motorola NYFD radio bribe comes out.

rjs wrote on November 4, 2007 6:08 PM:

5 year survival rates to not take into account LEAD-TIME BIAS. Those screened for a disease will have higher 5 year survivals than those not screened, even if mortality rates are the same. And they are the same in the US and GB for prostate cancer. Lead time bias reflects an earlier date of diagnosis, not a later date of death.

I guess icy truth is not much like actual truth. Or actual epidemiology for that matter.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)