October 29th, 2007
05:23 PM ET
4 years ago

Giuliani highlights cancer battle in new ad

Giuliani and wife Judith picked pumpkins in New Hampshire over the weekend.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani highlights his successful battle with prostate cancer in a new radio ad out Monday, and claims a "socialized" healthcare system would have significantly decreased his chances of survival.

“I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago,” the former New York City mayor says in the radio ad set to air in New Hampshire. “My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent 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," Giuliani continues in the ad. "What we need to do is to give people a $15,000 deduction for a family, a $7,500 deduction for an individual so they can go out and buy their own health insurance.”

All the leading Democratic presidential candidates have proposed universal healthcare plans, a policy approach Giuliani has often referred to as "socialist."

Giuliani dropped out of the New York Senate race in the spring of 2000 after announcing he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He underwent successful surgery the following September.

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Filed under: Ads • New Hampshire • Rudy Giuliani
soundoff (92 Responses)
  1. MR, Boston, MA

    Too bad he didn't go to England.

    October 29, 2007 06:06 pm at 6:06 pm |
  2. Donna, Waco TX

    That's just ducky, Rudy.

    I was diagnosed with oral cancer last week, and I don't have health insurance and your tax deduction wouldn't do squat for me. So guess what the survival rate for cancer with no medical intervention is?

    October 29, 2007 06:10 pm at 6:10 pm |
  3. sheridan, los angeles, calif.

    That makes no sense at all. If they did not have socialized medicine in England many people would have no health care at all and would surely die of prostate cancer if not treated. Is Rudy the only one who deserves to beat prostate cancer? What an ego.

    October 29, 2007 06:28 pm at 6:28 pm |
  4. Vance, Lansing, MI

    And for those with cancer and no insurance, what does Rudy offer?
    Nothing, nada. What a big phoney!

    October 29, 2007 06:35 pm at 6:35 pm |
  5. cristin, orlando FL

    "Giuliani and wife Judith picked pumpkins in New Hampshire over the weekend." Really? In that suit?

    October 29, 2007 06:41 pm at 6:41 pm |
  6. SD Smith, Seattle, WA

    Let them eat health care Rudolph?

    Rudy? Ever stop and ask yourself what the 40 million Americans without health care think about our system. Bet they would take a so-called "socialized" 44 percent survial rate, given their current odds of beating prostate cancer or other life threatening illness are likely much lower.

    America's health care system is nice for those who can afford it (ie Rudolph) and a disaster for those who can't.

    October 29, 2007 06:59 pm at 6:59 pm |
  7. jw, canadian,ok

    Rudy can't remember how many years ago he had prostrate cancer, but he can quote 44% and 82% – that is much bs.

    October 29, 2007 07:29 pm at 7:29 pm |
  8. Brandi,ny

    I am NOT being unkind, but maybe that is what is wrong with Rudy. If he had kemo-therapy they say that it affects your brain slightly.

    October 29, 2007 07:30 pm at 7:30 pm |
  9. Brandi,ny

    I am not talking about myself in case anybody thinks that, I am talking about a family member who lives in N.J. who I really don't care very much about. She just always talks kind of slow and forgets she told you things.

    October 29, 2007 07:56 pm at 7:56 pm |
  10. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    To Pat in Huntington ny: Thanks for replying for me because again Giuliani just opens his mouth without correct facts.

    October 29, 2007 08:19 pm at 8:19 pm |
  11. Grover Fairfield, Ohio

    I cannot believe how the opponents of single payer government backed health care keep repeating the lies about universal health care. They exaggerate the negatives and down play the positives, and exaggerate the cost. I cannot believe how the opponents of single payer government backed health care keep repeating the lies about universal health care. They exaggerate the negatives and down play the positives, and exaggerate the cost. The US spends in many cases exponentially more than the rest of the countries in the 'advanced' world, and gets a far lesser result, and it is getting worse.

    I read an article by a woman who had recently moved here from Australia.

    Basically she said the only medical services that the people of Australia had to wait on were elective surgery. The cost was a 1.5% tax.

    The cost is far less than what the opponents predict. In the case of Giuliani, where would have been little or no wait with a system like Australia, Canada, or England.

    So Rudy, cut the BS.

    October 29, 2007 08:20 pm at 8:20 pm |
  12. Ivan, Chicago, Illinois

    Figures lie and liars figure.
    Enough said.

    October 29, 2007 08:21 pm at 8:21 pm |
  13. linda, bella vista, ar

    You don't seemed to be posting comments, but I am going to try on this one. Someone actually checked Rudy's figures on this one. The actual UK survival rate is 74.4%. The discussion is that the difference is that the US has promoted early detection to get men to 'discuss' associated difficulties with their doctors. The early detection is the difference in the survival rate, not the difference in treatment.

    October 29, 2007 09:21 pm at 9:21 pm |
  14. Peter, Wausau, WI

    Very true! While I don't plan to vote for Rudy (instead, vote for Fred Thompson!), I respect his efforts to stand up against the socialist liberals.

    October 29, 2007 09:27 pm at 9:27 pm |
  15. anthony wade, vancouver, british columbia

    yup – canada has a good health care system but we also have 50% tax for a manager of a McDonalds. I would take the USA healthcare any day – and the tax dollars back! Socialism sucks – I know cuz I live with it.

    October 29, 2007 09:33 pm at 9:33 pm |
  16. Virginia, Rock Island, IL

    When I studied in Spain seven years ago, my host family had *private* insurance – in a country that has socialized medicine. Living there really drove home to me that it's not an either-or choice of private OR single-payer funded health care.

    A government run health care system would more efficiently pay for the cases hospitals are currently forced to take on as charity cases – which they then bill the government for. Our tax dollars are already paying for this, but we can get better results for our same money.

    People who currently have private insurance would largely continue to buy it, and this group would still receive the lower wait times and expanded treatment options that go with being willing to pay a premium for your care.

    People who currently receive good health care would continue to do so. People who currently receive abysmal health care would upgrade to merely inferior. What's to object to about that?

    October 29, 2007 09:42 pm at 9:42 pm |
  17. harold

    her health care is not socialist,i dont see where with your plan,that anyone can go out and get there own can't afford yours,she is right Universal health care for all americans once the system is in it will work.don't let these repbubs,quit spending there theory on war,and we wouldnt me in this mess.you follow bush to much

    October 29, 2007 09:44 pm at 9:44 pm |
  18. xtina - chicago IL

    This totally makes sense. Give us a tax deduction to buy our own health care instead of taking more taxes from our checks and letting the federal government run our health care choices. Either way, we pay for it, why give the power to the government?

    October 29, 2007 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm |
  19. Andrew, Atlanta, GA

    I know – this guy knows NOTHING about health care systems. It's unbelievable that he compares the U.S. to what is probably regarded as the worst known socialized medicine system – England. Really, that's desperate. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has one of the worst overall mortality rates of all western countries. You can't pick out the success rate of treatment of ONE disease and then pretend it represents the effectiveness of the health care system in general. Really, if this man has this lack of intelligence about health care, where else is he lacking? It's either lack of intelligence or lack of morality – he purposely tries to deceive others by misrepresenting a entire health care system with one, limited example. You choose. Either way, it's not good.

    October 29, 2007 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm |
  20. Tim, El Cerrito Ca

    This is typical Republican lies and distortions. When are the Republicans going to wake up and realize they are the ones without any credibility?

    October 29, 2007 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm |
  21. JD, Birmingham, Ala

    Why can't the newsmedia Google? Rudy's chances of survival were just as good in England. I wonder if his employer paid for his insurance? As a lifelong feaster at the public trough, I'm sure he accepted publicly financed health care.

    October 29, 2007 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm |
  22. Owen Vander, Evansville, IN

    Do the people who need health insurance for their families pay at least $15,000 in income taxes??? How much help will this deduction be to families who can not currently afford health insurance and, for example, pay $1000 in income taxes? Please advise me Rudy??? All I see of your proposal is another handout to the well off....

    October 30, 2007 12:13 am at 12:13 am |
  23. Liberal Chic

    I am not saying we should have universal health care, though some form of it with basic coverage (not every type of experiemental drug or million dollar treatment) would probably be good for America. But I would like to hear Giuliani say he doesn't want universal health care if he didn't have insurance or made low wages. How is a single person going to afford a $7500 for insurance, even with deductions, if he only makes $20K a year? Or how about if you are unemployed and looking for a job? From where is that $7500 going to come?

    This is one of those dumb, merit-less arguments Giuliani is going to make to attack Democrats. Why doesn't he and Judi enjoy the good life in the Hamptons and leave politics alone? None of us begrudge his speaking fees as a result of 9/11.

    October 30, 2007 12:19 am at 12:19 am |
  24. Rick, Kansas City, MO

    Socialism only looks good on paper. Look how well it worked out for the USSR.

    Eugene Debs is long gone; we don't need HRC to replace him.

    October 30, 2007 01:34 am at 1:34 am |
  25. Ivan, Chicago, Illinois

    Mr. Giuliani who are you trying to fool? A family of four earning $60,000 a year would only be eligible for a $5028 deduction. Nowhere near the cost of health insurance.
    I believe that with health care costing $1000 a month a family of four would need an income around $90,000 a year.
    So again another idea that sounds good but is not. So back to the drawing board for you.

    October 30, 2007 02:21 am at 2:21 am |
1 2 3 4