Giuliani is correct about National Health Care in UK

The article referenced in the title is about the survival rate of prostate Cancer cases in the UK versus in the USofA. Over 50% of prostate cancer cases in the UK which has a National Health Care System, die. Only 43% survive prostate cancer in the UK. In the USofA with its private health care (and even with the "uninsured" or "self insured") only 20% or prostate cancer cases die. Under which health care system would you rather live?

The UK system is not designed to produce optimal outcomes. Who would design a monopoly system, centrally managed with almost no market incentives, if optimal outcomes was the aim?

No, the UK system is aimed at something else - equity. It's main objective is to ensure universal and equal coverage of healthcare to all and this is achieved (or, at least, an attempt is made to achieve it) by sacrificing efficiency and suppressing professional wages to make the service free at the point of use to all residents.

Rudy Giuliani's point was surely, precisely that. That he prefers the outcome of private medicine to that of a socialised one.

Universal Health Care -- it will be the death of you!

“One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what’s available.”—John Stossell