Gregg: Health Care Reform Means More Cancer for You

What a tool.  Good for Jane for catching this.

There is absolutely no shame:

In England for example, they have a 78% survival rate for breast cancer.  In this country you have a 92% survival rate.  The difference is that we — because we have a system which encourages screening and we get people screened early — we catch cancer earlier, and as a result they’re  able to cure more people.  In England of course because they have a nationalized system people don’t have availability of screening.

In the study Gregg is citing, the country with the highest survival rate for breast cancer is — Cuba:

The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens. No private hospitals or clinics are permitted.

The problem in England is lack of resources devoted to the system.  It quite obviously has nothing to do with nationalization.  Gregg is a regular vote against any kind of health care funding.  He’s the problem — he’s not the solution.

Of course, Gregg can’t even be counted on to come up with his own scare tactics.  I remember hearing this canard from Richie Rich Tarrant back in 2006.

,

  • hannah

    Cancer treatment is not something you get at the emergency room, which is where conservatives assume really sick people without insurance get care.

    Gregg even mentioning cancer treatment suggests this is something he wants to confront head on, lest somebody start nattering about the fact that negligent environmental practices keep driving the incidence of cancer up for all age groups.  And he’s even more opposed to environmental protection than he is to protecting public health.

  • Dartmouth Dem

    I always enjoy reading about Sen. Gregg’s sensitivity to breast cancer patients.  His inherited millions never bought him a heart. . . . I hope the family of the terminally ill woman who he screwed over on his property sale 15 years ago is reading this — they’re entitled to a good laugh.

    The remarkable fact about universal coverage systems in Canada, the UK, and the rest of the EU: Even the conservative political parties wouldn’t dream of opposing them.  Health care as a right — not merely is privilege — is too damn popular.

    • Dartmouth Dem

      If Judd Gregg had voted for (a) increased breast cancer research funding, or (b) a mandate for health insurance companies to provide access to mammograms, then I might view him as something more than a hypocritical, self-serving whore for right-wing special interests.

      • hannah

        private entity to comply is near to impossible.  Besides, I don’t want politicians making health care decisions and specifying which service to provide to whom.

        If we want health care delivered to everyone, we the people have got to do it.  Letting the dollar decide hasn’t worked real well.  Besides, we already have an existing program that just needs a little tweaking, mainly because of the effort to mandate that participating providers deliver care at a profit.  But, that will be relative easy to fix once the central problem, that it’s discriminatory as to age, is corrected.  When everyone can Opt-In, we’ll be able to realize the economies of scale that are essential to making a protective service work well.

        Imagine a program of fire suppression that sets up a fire engine in every yard.

        • GreyMike

          Not fire engines, smoke detectors.

        • jvwalt

          When you say “I don’t want politicians making health care decisions,” you’re ignoring the fact that right now, it’s insurance company executives making those decisions. For all the ranting about politicians and bureaucrats, I’d much — MUCH — rather have them pulling the levers than corporate execs.  

          • hannah

            death.  We go to a lot of trouble to educate and train medical professionals.  To then rely on political or corporate middle men decide to whom their services are delivered and when is simply insane–especially since everybody knows the answers (everybody when they’re in need).

            The only real question is how the providers are going to be paid.  Presumably, since legal slavery has ended, we don’t expect them to work for free.  However, burdening them with the expense of their education has that effect for a significant number of years.

            The most persistent remnant of slavery seems to be that some people are always looking to get something for free.  The line between voluntary servitude and involuntary servitude is very thin.  Just ask the victims of the “stop loss” program.

        • hannah

          is it not the grossest injustice to expect the most recent inductees into the medical profession to work for free while the established fraternity agitates for ever more excessive profit?

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb