they would rather go to europe or canada. that is a problem for the reformist movement. and a lot of ways, i do not think it has new ideas and it does not have new leadership. the fact that they were not able to change the system really counts against them. they cannot bring up another person to represent them because that could be seen as a threat to the system. i talk about the left at being a reformist. he believed along with the left of the reformists that the islamic republic was going in the wrong direction. he has been compared to gorbachev. i do not think that as a good comparison so. although i talk about differences, i do not think we should exaggerate these differences. it is in a very confined space. part of the problem is that there is a trend in iranian society toward secularization. young people do not accept the rule of their ron as much. one more thing, i watched the debate. he is not a very good speaker. he has no charisma. although the economy is in bad shape and he is getting a lot of support, i wonder if that will translate into a massive vote for hi

or canada. i'm not here to either praise or condemn those systems. in western europe, the united kingdom, or anywhere else. they're different systems. people need to understand that. what happens in those systems when the costs continue to rise for health care and there aren't the tax dollars to meet the costs they deny care. i think we all know that -- we know that people are concerned about cures, not treatments. they want to be treated like human beings, not numbers. unfortunately, that can happen in those systems when off single payer system, take a number, wait for dialysis, wait for hip replacement if you can wait that long. if you're canadian, if you have the money, come across the border and get the care you need when you need it. i think we have to have this sober discussion. mr. kirk: the gentleman points out canada, a country with a two-tyre health care system, the canadian health care system, then when you're denied care, especially prevalent when you need imagery, we come to the -- they come to the united states. some doctors call it fargoing a patient. w

in canada and europe, advanced oncology medicines are restricted and imagery to find cancer either through x-rays, m.r.i. or ct scans are more available in the united states to find cancer at its earlier stage. americans have a greater chance of surviving cancer. when we look at five-year survival rates, overall, the picture is also stark. women fighting cancer have a 65% chance of surviving if they are treated in the united states. that survival rate drops to 56% in europe. for men, the difference is even starker. 66% of american men will survive a cancer diagnosis. only 47% of european men. bottom line once again, we see across both men and women, you are much more likely to survive cancer in the united states than in european countries. and much of the reason why is because in countries in which the government controls more of the health care sector, they restrict access to oncoling medicine and to imagery. and cancer is found later and fought with less aggressive drugs, meaning that europeans will die at a higher rate than americans. when we look at high tech medical procedures in britain, canada and th

have a system that very much models or is very similar to what we see in other places around the world. some people talk about canada. some people talk about europe and all of these great systems. but the reality is that a lot of people in those systems come to the united states. the reason they come here is because they have the highest quality of care and they can get access to it. one thing that happens when the government runs health care, the government decides what procedures are covered. the government decides what treatments are going to be part of the coverage. the government will decide how soon you can get access to those treatments and what you find in other countries around the world are long lines, long waits. and that's fairly typical of the -- of the country's that i just mentioned. the thing that makes the american system so unique in all of the world is its depends upon and its foundation is a market-based system. it's led to incredible innovation, it's led to incredible research and development, new treatments, new trerpies and has provided all kinds of -- therapies and has provided all kinds of opportunities for people to rece

or test and frequently the denial of care which results from that. when a government takes over health care as it has, for example in, britain, canada and many places in europe and other places, care inevitably is rationed. we all have heard the stories. one of the most direct ways that you can ration care is one of that the white house has already embraced and it's part of the kennedy bill that i spoke of earlier. the white house has said that comparative effectiveness research, which would study clinical evidence to decide what works best, will help them eliminate wasteful treatments. wasteful to whom? the recent national institutes of health project has a description of part of their plan that states -- and i'm quoting here -- cost effectiveness research will provide accurate and objective information to guide future policies that support the allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic conditions. allocation of health resources is a euphemism for rationing. allocation means to allocate. and inevitably there will be denial based upon those things which are deemed to be too costly. as discussions about health care reform have domin