Death by bad health care

[Moby]

So is being 19th better than being #11? :( This is so sad.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/08/amenable-mortality-us-health-care-system-versus-other-countries-.html

As we noted previously, comparing different countries’ health care systems is tough because of the many variables involved, such as the fact that the U.S. has both the highest rate of overweight and obesity and the lowest smoking rate of the eight industrialized countries we’ve been looking at. And let’s not even get into matters like diet: how to compare Japanese who live on rice, fish, and vegetables to the wine-and-cheese-loving French to the fast-food-eating Americans?

Enter the concept of "amenable mortality." Invented years ago in the United States and used worldwide by researchers ever since, it’s basically a body count of people who die for want of "timely and effective health care." A higher rate is bad, because it means the country’s health care system is falling down on its one and only job, which is to keep people healthy and do the best job possible of treating them if they get sick.

Examples of the types of deaths we’re talking about:


Adults who die from breast or colon cancer before age 75, indicating lack of timely mammograms or colon screens or care.
Children who die before age 14 from vaccine-preventable or easily treatable illnesses such as coughs, measles, asthma, and other respiratory problems.
Diabetics who die before age 50 from complications that could easily have been prevented with proper medical management.
People who die from infections or hypertension before age 75, a symptom of lack of preventative and appropriate care, including blood pressure control.
Back in the mid-1990s, two British researchers measured amenable mortality in 19 industrialized countries. At the time, the U.S. ranked 15th out of the 19 (above*).


Last year, the same two researchers published an update, in the January-February, 2008 issue of the scholarly journal Health Affairs. (You need a subscription to access the full article but can read a good summary of it here.) Sadly, the U.S. had by this time fallen to last place (right*).
"We got better by 4 percent, but the other countries got better by 16 percent, and the United Kingdom just blew right by us," says Cathy Schoen, M.S., senior vice president for research and evaluationof the Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit health care research organization.

If the U.S. could improve and reach the average of 18 other countries, much 75,000 deaths a year would be saved. If the U.S. could reach the rate of the top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths per year.
Something to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician boast that the U.S. has "the best health care in the world" or warn of the supposed horrors of the British or Canadian systems.

—Nancy Metcalf, Senior Program Editor

[kres24GT]

Fascism is the solution. We can do it, but only with Big Government running our lives.

[Thai Kimchi]

Fascism is the solution. We can do it, but only with Big Government running our lives.

Great point. I'd much prefer to have UHC and Aetna run my life.

[kres24GT]

Great point. I'd much prefer to have UHC and Aetna run my life.


The one and only solution is a Big Government one. Without governmetn and fascism, nothing can be achieved.

[Thai Kimchi]

The one and only solution is a Big Government one. Without governmetn and fascism, nothing can be achieved.

I'm much more concerned about corporate fascism, but I'll keep an eye on the Feds as well. Thanks for the head's up.

[kres24GT]

I'm much more concerned about corporate fascism, but I'll keep an eye on the Feds as well. Thanks for the head's up.


Corporate fascism can only occur with Big Government. Of course that has nothing to do with the point. Good deflection though, not really.

[Thai Kimchi]

Corporate fascism can only occur with Big Government,

Correct - President Cheney and his front man GWB made your point in spades. But don't worry, it looks like Obama isn't strong enough to reverse the trend, so far. This Right Wing fascism is a festering sore that won't go away, granted.

The word "fascism" has been given many definitions - here's one: "Fascism is a politico-economic system in which there is: total executive branch control of both the legislative and administrative powers of government; no independent judiciary; no Constitution that embodies the Rule of Law standing above the people who run the government; no inherent personal rights or liberties; a single national ideology that first demonizes and then criminalizes all political, religious, and ideological opposition to it; the massive and regular use of hate, fear, racial and religious prejudice, the Big Lie technique, mob psychology and mob actions to achieve political and economic ends; and total corporate determination of economic, fiscal, and regulatory policy." Of course one thinks immediately of Cheney/Bush, but that is old news.

Total fascism has never come to a country peacefully. Violent repression of dissent is always at its center. In addition to organized armed force, it always relies on a loosely organized mob of one kind or another to take advantage of crisis situations and set the stage for the armed takeover of the pillars of the state. Thus what is going on now, most likely not consciously organized for that end yet in too many quarters, is the beginning of the setting of the stage and the training of the civilian troops.

Underlain by race, of course, is a total rejection of President Obama's leadership, a total rejection of the results of the election a little more than six months ago, the encouragement of violence and not just by some lunatic fringe. Lou Dobbs called for the execution, by a "stake through the heart" of former DNC Chair and Governor of Vermont, Dr. Howard Dean. (One notes with irony that Don Imus lost his job at CBS for calling the members of a women's basketball team "nappy headed ho's." Dobbs calls for the murder of a leader of the other side and that is met by a screaming silence at CNN corporate.)

And that's just one example. More far right-wing, proto-fascist atmospherics. Is a fascist revolution being actively plotted now? I doubt it. But as the Southern Poverty Law Center has just reported the right-wing militia movement is growing by leaps and bounds, fueled by racism and hate. There is the armed force for a potential fascist takeover at the right time, and ho would oppose that armed force, should it come to that?

The GOP is of course against health care reform because it would severely hurt the profit-making prospects of the sickness care insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital supply industries. But there are Democrats who hold to that opposition for the same reasons. So that's not the only reason that the GOP is desperate to prevent reform at least anything meaningful. If Obama manages to get something with a public option and a couple of other critical elements, the GOP's electoral prospects go into the toilet for a number of elections to come.

And that's what the birthers/deathers/teabaggers are all about. Not real complicated.

[kres24GT]

Fascism has come to America very quietly, in fact over 98% of Americans vote for it every 2 years.

The GOP is against healthcare reform because they aren't in power. They have no problem with entitlements and welfare, they will gladly hand the out, as long as they can set it up where those who are paid up with the benefit. Democrats want to get it passed for the same reason, so those paid up with them benefit.

[surfcaster]

Fascism has come to America very quietly, in fact over 98% of Americans vote for it every 2 years. Just by way of explanation, what is it that 98% of American vote on?

The GOP is against healthcare reform because they aren't in power. They have no problem with entitlements and welfare, they will gladly hand the out, as long as they can set it up where those who are paid up with the benefit. Democrats want to get it passed for the same reason, so those paid up with them benefit.So you're saying that the GOP is in support of social safety nets as long as the benefits get delivered to the right people?

[kres24GT]

Just by way of explanation, what is it that 98% of American vote on?

So you're saying that the GOP is in support of social safety nets as long as the benefits get delivered to the right people?


Yep, same with Democrats.

[surfcaster]

Yep, same with Democrats.OK.

What about the 98%? What is that referencing?

[surfcaster]

Yep, same with Democrats.Can you explain to me why then Ronald Reagan, the GOP god, was most infamously noted for his destruction of social programs.

"President Reagan was a firm believer in this methodology and almost from the moment he took his oath of office set to work dismantling government entitlement programs. The first major step toward rolling back opportunities for those not lucky enough to be born into wealth took place when he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA). OBRA served to cut federal funding programs for the poor as well as inducements for states to provide funding. Unfortunately, cutting funding for programs was not enough to revolutionize the welfare programs in the way that conservative ideologues desired. In order to completely undermine the progressive system of entitlements to the poor, the Reagan administration began to use tax reform as a method of undercutting welfare.

By cutting taxes and instituting such concepts as the Earned Income Credit, Reagan-always the actor-gave the outward appearance of helping poor families. Unfortunately, those measly tax cut gains made barely a dent in the overall loss in benefits the poor were no longer receiving because
of cuts and changes to entitlement programs. Throughout the Reagan presidency cuts and rollbacks to welfare programs were systematically enacted even as the income gap between the richest and poorest Americans reached peak proportions. While the wealthy were unquestionably benefiting from their huge tax cuts, the poor were actually losing ground because of them. When Reagan finally left office and his Vice President George Bush ascended to the Presidency in the election of 1988, Bush inherited historic budget deficits of over 3 trillion dollars. Deficits like these left little opportunity to increase spending on social programs even if he had desired to do so. Which, of course, he didn't. After all, there was a war to be waged in Iraq. Remember, I'm talking about George Bush the First. Sometimes, it seems like the country went through a time machine and we're reliving 1989-1992 all over again.

Because the enormous deficit threatened all spending programs, a budget compromise deal was cut in Congress. The compromise contained provisions to increase funding for many social programs that had been assaulted during the Reagan presidency. Despite the best efforts of the social progressives to spin these gains into a success story, the compromise required to ensure these budget increases came at the price of effectively undermining completely the very structure of program funding. For one thing, any budget gains that resulted from a reduction in spending on defense programs-which had skyrocketed during the Reagan era and therefore represented a potential goldmine-would go toward deficit reduction and would therefore not be eligible for spending on domestic programs. And secondly, any increase in spending on domestic programs would have to be offset by a reduction in spending on another domestic program. In other words, the government had to steal from Peter to pay Paul while Caesar sat around spending billions on lances and spears.

Without most people even realizing it was taking place, a profound shift in the paradigm toward government entitlement theory was created by the Reagan policies of tax cuts and deficits. Although no one in the Reagan/Bush administrations came out doing high-fives and boasting that they
had undone the New Deal and Great Society efforts put forth by FDR and LBJ, that is essentially what happened. The exploding deficit led to an unavoidable clash of ideologies resulting in a compromise plan to cut the deficit that has left funding for social programs almost irrevocably altered to the detriment of the welfare state. Meanwhile, people like Jack Abramoff are giving our highest-paid federal employees-who were all wealthy to begin with-paid vacations and parties and dinners and gifts to ensure that what money isn't being spent on the military and space programs designed to line the coffers of Bush's big business buddies is going to whatever precious pork plan our leaders desire and not toward taking care of people who aren't lucky enough to have born in the same class of wealth that they were.

So, one of the legacies of President Reagan-the Greatest American of All Time-was the significant deconstruction of the American social policy of taking care of those least able to take care of themselves."

So, you see, the GOP would have to climb up to even be on the first rung of the ladder of support for social programs. Please provide me with some reference material that causes you to make such a judgment.

source: associatedcontent
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/19457/ronald_reagan_budget_cuts_deficit_spending.html?ca t=37